Review: Congressional Term Limits

        I read Brandon Stewart's Congressional Term Limits and thought it was interesting. I agree with Brandon and believe that Congress men/women, should have term limits. Brandon mentions the unfairness challengers face when running against an incumbent. This is true on many levels especially on a financial level. It is much easier for an incumbent to gain financial backing from other donors or interest groups.
        In Brandon's commentary I would liked to have seen an article that was linked to his chosen topic. An article that explained current term limits for congress members would have been informative for a reader that is uninformed. Brandon did a great job of giving reasons for term limits in congress. I am interested and would like to hear what suggestions Brandon would have for the term limits of each office.

       At the end of this month coal miners will lose their health benefits if Congress does not act. According to the article How Congress can be coal miner's lifeline written by Van Jones and Jason Walsh Congress failed to include the Miners Protection Act (MPA) in the Continuing Resolution from last year. This bill would allow for federal funding to be used so that mine worker retirees could continue to receive health benefits.

        During President Trumps campaign he told the miners that he would help them. Many of these miners believed him and voted for him in hope of a resolution to their problems.  Since Trump has been in office he has maintained silence on the issue. There are many families such as the Leaches who depend on the health benefits for severe medical conditions.

        I feel that Congress has allowed corporations such as Peabody and the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds to take advantage of these retirees. These companies promised the miners and their dependents lifetime health benefits. When Peabody sold the company to Patriot Coal is when things got bad.

      Unfortunately for the miners, Patriot Coal was able to discontinue these benefits by filing for bankruptcy.  I feel that Congress should step in and help these men and women who put their health on the line by working underground in horrible conditions. These retirees contributed to the win of World War II.  Without these individuals there would not have been power and steel that aided in the victory for The United States.

      I have chosen to do my commentary on Ashley Underdown's article,Women of America. In her commentary I feel that Ashley is targeting women and liberals. Ashley speaks of Trump's efforts to decrease funding for programs such as Plannned Parenthood. She states that this type of program is very important to women from low-income or middle class families.  I agree with her ideas that women should have a right to their bodies and preventative care.
      I feel that programs such as these are important to women and also young ladies. Speaking from personal experience, I  did not always have private insurance, so I turned to Planned Parenthood for yearly exams. I can not imagine the amount of money I would have had to pay out of pocket, had it not been for this program.
      Ashley states that women turned to intrauterine implant devices to protect themselves from Trump's policies. I would have like to have seen a source listed to further read and inform myself of these potential policies. This commentary was well thought out and educational. Ashley's blog showed me, I need to be more aware of policies that could potentially affect women's health.

The Wall To Be, Or Not To Be, - That Is The Question

What is Trumps wall really going to prevent? This thirty foot wall could easily be crossed by simply purchasing two 40 foot ladders from the Home Depot. If an immigrant wants to come over to The United States they will find a way. If you think about it, underground tunnels have been constructed to traffic drugs. Who’s to say that the same will not be done to cross individuals into the United States? How many people actually cross illegally through the desert? I would think that most immigrants that enter The United States do so by receiving a work visa. Once the work visa expires individuals end up just staying here. The Mexico border is not the only place immigrants enter through. There are many entry points along the east coast such as Florida in which an immigrant can enter.

Trumps border wall, in my personal opinion, is a waste of time and tax payer’s dollars.  If this wall were to be built, how many people would need to patrol it to ensure its defense?  Where would the income come from to pay these individuals? I can understand President Trump’s safety concerns, but a concrete wall is not the way to keep immigrants out.  I feel that tax payer’s dollars could be better served improving our school systems or other pressing issues here at home. Trump says that in the end Mexico will have paid for this wall. I do not see this happening, what do they have to gain by doing so?

Campaign Retraction

In the article I have chosen I feel that it has been targeted toward liberals and low income audience. The article can be found through Townes, Carimah.  “After promising to revitalize ‘inner cities,’ Trump decides to shred affordable housing. “Thinkprogrees.org, 9 March 2017, https://thinkprogress.org/after-promising-to-revitalize-inner-cities-trump-decides-to-shred-affordable-housing-79033995ea30#.bnn4rxagb. Accessed 10 March 2017. The editor speaks of President Trump promising to clean up the inner cities with higher crime rates. Carimah claims that Trump is pulling funds from the HUD program and distributing them to the national defense budget.  The editor does a good job of placing an embedded link with the article explaining potential cuts to the HUD budget.  Carimah explains the potential impact and existing effects of the proposed budget cuts. A report  from HUD shows the repairs that are needed totaling $21 billion dollars. The budget cut would lead to current and future repairs being untouched.  Carimah links the HUD  government website which shows funds that are needed for public housing repairs.

I agree with Carimah when she says these types of cuts could lead to more families and individuals being homeless. There are many who struggle to make ends meet and live in unsuitable low income homes. I speak from personal experience. I believe we need a strong national defense, but we also need to care for those who live within our nation. Although Carmiah posted a blog, I feel she did a great job of providing linked evidence from credible sources.  It allows the reader to not just take her word, but to also be able to do research of their own if chosen to do so.

Immigration

    In the article Immigration crackdown — reality check: Our view I feel as though the article is intended for liberals.  The editor also gives an opposing argument that seems to be directed towards conservatives. The USA Today is known for being a mix of liberal and conservative ideologies which would make sense to target both audiences. The editor argues that new guidelines could cause many immigrants to be captured and deported. Immigrants who have followed the law are also susceptible to falling victims to deportation policies.  Although the editor makes claims of new guidelines he does not give the reader a reference to the source of the documents.
     In the opposing argument, the editor mentions that deporting immigrants that pose a danger or have been convicted of serious crimes is acceptable.  I agree with this, we should not have to support those who are not contributing to our nation in a positive manner. The article mentions that those who have committed minor crimes or have yet to be convicted also face the possibility of deportation. I feel this is unfair, we as a nation believe "innocent until proven guilty", yet are going to detain those who have not been tried. The editor also gives a polling number that shows most Americans  do not want more raids or roundups. The editor suggests that maintaining the program will only cause taxpayers more money. This suggestion is not supported by any evidence.I feel that the editor may have only struck more fear in some of the readers. There was no support or references to suggest that immigrants who abide the law will also be under attack.

   The New York Times Published an article today titled, "Addiction Treatment Grew Under Health Law. Now What?".  This article speaks of the treatment that is covered by the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid for individuals with a substance abuse disorder. It is estimated that nearly 2.8 million people were able to seek outpatient counseling and medication to reduce a possible relapse. Due to many having health coverage the numbers in substance abuse for Opioid is decreasing. The article states that President Trump has pledge to stop Obamacare and expand medical treatment for substance abuse. Many are worried that if the Affordable Care Act is removed, no treatment options will be available for those without access to insurance.
    I found this article interesting because I was unaware of the benefits offered by the Affordable Care Act. When I think of health insurance coverage, substance abuse treatment is the last thing on my mind. I think it is nice that counseling and medication are provided to those who seek improvement in their lives. I can't help but wonder how many individuals are unaware of the assistance they are eligible for. Here is the link if you would like to read the article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/health/addiction-treatment-opiods-aca-obamacare.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0