1. His Economic Ideas Are Not Popular

As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan has been in charge of creating and introducing a budget that sets America’s priorities, but his ideas have not been popular with the majority of the American people.

Since 2008 the plan has not changed much, but in 2011, Newt Gingrich famously described it as “social engineering”. At the same time Gallup found in 2011 only 43 percent of Americans thought the plan would reduce America’s long term deficit.

2. It Gives Liberals A Reason To Vote

Liberal economists and Democrats in Congress have railed against Congressman Ryan’s proposals saying it puts a huge burden on the poor and raises the cost of living for senior citizens.

Some Democratic operatives have been worried that with the economy not picking up as fast as they would like, and with the inability to use “Hope” and “Change” as slogans again, it would be hard to appeal to the base of the party. But the ideas in Ryan’s budget could be used as a contrast and give liberals a reason to vote.

3. He Has Not Accomplished Anything

In today’s speech Paul Ryan said “I believe my record of getting things done in Congress will be a very helpful complement to Governor Romney’s executive and private sector success outside Washington”. Besides the budgets he introduced, which did pass the House, the Congressman has no major accomplishments to his name in the 14 years he has served in the House.

4. He’s A Member of the House

There’s nothing wrong with being a member of the House of Representatives, however, there’s a reason why President James Garfield in 1880 was the last person to go from the House directly to the White House.

Today, members of the House typically have not run state wide before and proved they can appeal to both Democrats and Republicans. Paul Ryan represents a swing district which voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008, and were already represented by a Republican Mark Neumann who lost a bid to become Wisconsin’s next Governor.

Ryan came from his district which always helps, but just because you appeal to a part of it does not mean you appeal to the rest of your state.

5. He Does Not Win Romney Any States

One of the major reasons Paul Ryan was picked was his appeal to the right wing of the Republican party. There’s no doubt that it is there, poll after poll proves the Tea Party like the budgets Ryan has introduced in Congress.

But besides Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, what other Senator has proudly declared him or herself a member of the Tea Party? A quick Google search shows Mr. Ryan never has.

Kentucky is also one of the reddest of red states and Senator Paul’s philosophy appeals to the vast majority of the people living there. It helps to have an organization like the Tea Party to knock on doors for you, but it’s not exactly the hardest thing to get those votes.

6. He’s A Republican Party Pick

Paul Ryan may say he’s just a hometown boy but it’s hard to stay in Washington for 14 years and not make some friends. Ryan was working in Washington before he decided to run for Congress and if you look on the American Enterprise Institutes website and search his name you will see how this conservative and highly influential think tank has glorified Ryan’s work and urged him to run for President.

The people who run think tanks have friends everywhere, including highly influential people in both major political parties. While theoretically the parties and think tanks are supposed to be separate entities, the lines blur and having friends who can talk to other elected officials for you increases your influence in Washington, and in this case it helped Paul Ryan get the Vice Presidential nod from Mitt Romney.
A version of this post also appeared on PolicyMic.

Despite the successful advertisement campaigns run by Facebook and Google, ensuring that they are cool and hip, the fact remains they are working to protect their brand just like any other company. But there are real reasons why the internet needs to be regulated in order to ensure the millions of people who use it for their personal and business lives are protected.

1) Online Credit

Forget about sending a check in the mail to pay the rent, insurance, or even using cash. Technology companies are making it easier to use a card or online banking wherever you go. That means more people will have information relating to your finances. Technology companies building these products are not banks who have government bureaus setting rules and regulations on what they can and cannot do, but will still have sensitive information that can be stolen and ruin your credit.

It is important to note that just because they have this information does not mean they are going to give it out. In fact, they most likely would not as it would be bad for business. That being said, there are laws forbidding banks from giving it out anyway for those instances where it does, and it doesn’t seem to interfere with them making billion’s of dollars each year.

It also seems to make sense that technology companies should be obligated to have the latest security software to protect the financial information people must give to them.

2) Big Brother’s Watching

It is not just about the products themselves but the way they develop them. Facebook, Google, and Twitter, all put out new ways for people to share information, while at the same time they track the way people are using them. The most controversial instance was when the story broke about how people who had an iPad or Android device were essentially being followed, using the GPS inside the equipment. The reason for the companies doing this made perfect sense, they needed to know how people were using their product so they can improve it and make it more popular so others would use it as well.

Of course, no one knew they were being followed and technology companies saw no reason to tell them. As far as they were concerned, with as many people using their technology as it was, it was best for the consumers that they do this. While no one is being followed around anymore, maps are still a popular feature on Apple and Google products, Four Square and other “check in” applications are becoming more popular with people and restaurants/bars who offer deals using them, and cameras are being placed on all the new gadgets people are buying. Without any rules forbidding these practices from taking place, there will still be plenty of ways for companies to track what an individual’s habits are, whether you like it or not.

3) Business Is Business

Microsoft and Google already fight over patents and sue each other over any antitrust legalize their lawyers can think of; which means it is only a matter of time before there is a lawsuit over one company using a tech companies products.

It seems more and more likely that cloud computing will be an important part of how people do business. There is technology that allows people to record the call they are on, share documents that make it more efficient to work with multiple people in the office, and even talk to people across the world. Right now, non-profits can use most of these products for free or at very little cost. But what happens when a for-profit company, that had to pay a tech company to use its product, makes something that is worth a lot of money?

Many of the lawsuits we see today are hit or miss shots taken by lawyers who have nothing to lose. But what if, for example, a cure for the common cold is created by a pharmaceutical company using Google documents? Should Google have a right to the patent because the scientists combined their efforts using a Google product they paid for? This scenario may not happen in the near future but as the internet continues to become a common use for the way businesses operate, it is likely that one day it will.

That means other companies outside of Silicon Valley will be lobbying against Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, so they can protect their products as well. One fight has already taken place with the film industry when their lobbyists could not push a bill through Congress that would have protected films from being stolen overseas.

With bills like CISPA being put aside, millions of people, small businesses, and future entrepreneurs, will not get the protection they need to go about their everyday lives, without worrying about someone stealing their credit information, something they created, or someone tracking their habits. We know no law is perfect, but there are common sense regulations that can be implemented that will make life easier for individuals and companies alike.

When S&P downgraded America’s credit the rational was not an economic one, it was because S&P was afraid that the current political climate in Washington was not suitable to adequately address the serious problem at hand. Now when they decide to downgrade Europe’s rating, their reasoning is almost the opposite. The small actions Europe took were not strong enough to spur growth, while across the pond conservatives were complaining Obama was doing too much.

Republicans have been arguing that the White House has irrationally increased the nation’s debt while millions of Americans are still looking for a job. The entire Recovery Act (including tax breaks, entitlement programs, and direct spending) was worth $787 billion. Now three years later, when most of the program has been implemented, the unemployment rate has gone down, less people are asking for government benefits, and investors feel much more confident in America’s future. We were lucky that an extra $787 billion infused into people’s wallets, enabling them to spend money on items they need while at the same time giving a much needed jolt to the economy.

As the campaign season is just starting to take shape, there is no doubt that Republicans will be saying the Recovery Act did nothing to help the economy. Some of the criticism is valid. The unemployment rate is still high and when it first passed, the Obama administration said at this point America would be out of the recession. Well, technically we’re out of the recession, but many families are still struggling.

But Republicans in Congress have been adamantly against raising the debt ceiling, which would cause the government to come to a halt and the economy to go into another tailspin. All the spending from that Recovery Act that has helped create millions of jobs since its implementation, and those that need help putting food on the table, will not be able to get the support they need.

The last time the debt ceiling had to be raised the stock market took wild swings and caused many business leaders to go into a panic. The increase only occurred when Democrats in the House decided they would vote for it and risk being branded as big spending liberals. But in the end, both sides looked bad which allowed reporters to tweet an insurmountable amount of “winning” jokes.

If we did not know it before, we know now that government does play an important role in the economy, and despite what Ron Paul says, that is the world we live in. If the Recovery Act was not implemented, if the debt ceiling was not raised last year, and if Republicans had their way on both these issues, Republicans worst fear of America becoming like Europe would actually be coming true.

The dirty secret about politics, is that no one likes politics. When serious decisions need to be made, the last thing people want to see is their elected official calling each others names and positioning themselves to win. It is not good for the country, it is not good for the economy, and it is certainly not good for members of Congress’ chances of being reelected. People should not have to do this, but this time it might be worth asking our elected officials please, not another fight that’s debt.

The term learning disability is still relatively new to the world of education. As education experts realized everyone learns in different ways it became apparent they need to figure out ways that account for all different learning methods. Today, over six million students have been diagnosed with a learning disability and have sparked debate within the community on how best to teach students. As a way to figure out ways to help students that are behind, they have been diagnosed with different disabilities that describe the problems they are having in class.

“I have dealt with kids who curse and scream and fight and cut class, and read on a 1st grade level (when in 6th grade), and can’t understand basic concepts, can’t spell or write ‘properly,’ are three grade levels behind (age wise), and kids who talk back and refuse to do work.” Jonah Stevens, a Special Education teacher in New York’s South Bronx, said when asked to describe his experience teaching students who have learning disabilities.

A learning disability is different from being mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed because these students can still be in the classroom with their peers. A disability can affect different aspects of learning and are diagnosed as affecting specific areas where the child is struggling. Almost half of students diagnosed with a learning disability are performing below where they are supposed to be in math and English and 22 percent of them drop out of high school.

Some of these diagnoses are more popular than others such as Dyslexia, a language and reading disability, or dyscalculia, where students can have problems with arithmetic and other math concepts. Not as well known are Dyspraxia where students have difficulty writing, and Central Auditory Processing Disorder where it can be hard to process and remember language-related tasks. While they may be able to remember words to a song they hear, the learning disabled may process thoughts slowly and then have difficulty explaining them later.

After determining what kind of disability the child is facing, a Individualized Educational Program (IEP) is written for that child that the school is supposed to follow. These accommodations could mean extra time on a test, a computer to take tests or write papers with, and at times placed in another room to learn methods that will help them study. But even with these tools in place, Stevens said “most of the students I have dealt with are just very far academically behind and therefore can be behaviorally difficult” making it harder for him to give his students the individual attention they need.

While it is not known what causes someone to have a learning disability, it does not break down ethnic lines, but usually socio-economic. In many districts across the country, schools do not have the resources necessary to handle their students’ needs. According to Dr. Louis Kraus “There are some schools that are incredibly well positioned to do that, and there are other schools that are less able to do that.” Dr. Kraus works with children and families with learning disabilities and advises fifteen school districts in Chicago. As most school districts around the country get their funding based on the neighborhood they are in, it becomes harder to get what students need to learn. It should not come as a surprise Stevens is facing an uphill battle since the South Bronx is one of the poorest districts in the country. According to Kraus “some of the better school districts have been able to provide some of these needs and less funded school districts are less able to provide for these kids.”

While many experts agree that inclusion in the classroom is best for these students, figuring out the best way to teach them still remains a problem. Studies have shown teachers with more experience are better equipped to help them, and knowledge of different teaching methods for new teachers is useful as well. Like everyone else, students with learning disabilities can have difficulties in one area but excel in another. But even in the areas where they can excel, it becomes harder because they have to focus more on the areas where they are struggling. For teachers, their goal is to figure out the most effective way for students to express their interests in ways that suits them best. Stevens said that “The number one thing in dealing with students with disabilities, and teaching in general, is having good management skills. In many cases it means developing good personal relationships with students in order to have control and the respect of your class. If you do not, your teaching experience will become an awful battle.”

In most cases students diagnosed with a learning disability are pulled out of the classroom for a time so they can receive extra help. But new concepts are being implemented that keep students in all inclusive classrooms.

The Universal Design of Instruction (UDI) takes into account current technologies, combined with proven teaching methods, and puts them into one classroom. The theory is that whether a child is learning disabled or not they will have all the resources he or she needs in one place. Dr. Srikala Naraian, of Teachers College at Columbia University, describes that concept as shifting “the focus from the deficit to the social environment. What kinds of support can be given to all kids in the classroom instead of looking at these kids of needing or having deficits. Recognize they are inseparable from structural support and see what they can do.” This new concept is meant to get the students the support they need because, according to Naraian “there are areas they may be struggling in that may not qualify them to get special ed.”

Every student already has strengths in different areas and UDI is meant to bring them out. According to Naraian teachers in the UDI classroom are supposed to present “a choice (for students) in all different ways you present the content to engage their learning and different ways to get them how to demonstrate how they learn.” That way you are focusing on their strengths while making sure they understand the content. While UDI has been gaining momentum in recent years, there are still many questions that need to be answered.

“No matter how much of an idealist that may sound for many kids there are many kids who just can’t have their needs met because of behavioral outbursts that can occur within the mainstream classroom.” Says Kraus, who does agree that all students should be with their peers, went on to say “but it tends to be quite costly because of the amount of staff they have to have.”

The Principal of Philadelphia’s Science Leadership Academy (SLA), Chris Lehmann, says that UDI isn’t a bad idea “I think any time you move away from cookie cutter curriculum and you allow them to practice their own skill sets, their own interests, and don’t assume a deficit model it helps all students including those with learning disabilities.” Lehmann believes the real problem is “you assume that everyone can do the exact same thing, then you really put kids with learning disabilities at a real disadvantage where as if you allow people to play to their strengths and learn how to minimize their deficits, because everybody has deficits.”

SLA is a magnet school which has allowed them to have a little more freedom then other public schools. Lehmann said they designed a curriculum that all the teachers were involved in, which helped teachers and students alike. “One of our big winners has been for us at SLA is that we have developed a very strong language for learning between teachers and I think that kids many times suffer from getting lost in school in many ways that are avoidable.” Having this common approach to teaching, he notes, helps students with disabilities because they do not have to adjust to different teaching styles throughout the day. “So the more you can create a common language of learning the more teachers can walk the same walk and sort of enforce their own sort of internal discipline of what they need. Then you are individualizing with a common set of goals, a common set of language, and common set of rubric, a common set of input, and when you do individualize in that environment the individualization becomes very, very powerful.”

But of course there is only so much a school can do. “There’s no special education society” Lehmann says. “You walk into a voting booth and you vote for who you vote for. And it’s the same way with jobs you work for who you work and it’s up to parents to help realize their full versions of themselves when they leave our walls.”

In order to best help those with a learning disability, Dr. Kraus believes a early diagnosis is necessary. That way these children know what to do early on to prepare for class and which studying methods work best for them. Parents should also be aware of other issues, such as corresponding emotional problems. The majority of parents are happy to have their child diagnosed with something after noticing the problems they are having in school. “Much more often than not the parent, with good intervention, learns an appropriate understanding of what their child’s needs are and can work irrevocably with the school systems.” But it is not uncommon to find parents looking for a cure. Kraus said many parents ask “When will it be fixed? And you can’t tell a parent, when, if at all, it will be fixed. You don’t know how far the child will go with interventions. Sometimes it goes incredibly well, sometimes not so well.” It can become a difficult situation for parents and put teachers in a difficult situation because “you can’t guarantee it but what you get to do is work with them and get those interventions in place as early as possible.”

Lehmann said “it’s an understandable impulse to think that a school can cure their child, and it’s not about that as much as we may want it to be. It’s about helping kids to mitigate their deficits and play to their strengths. And learn how to live with a disability that isn’t going to go away no matter what you do.”

For many of the teachers who work with the learning disabled the reward comes from trying to help. Stevens insists that despite the obstacles “I always come back because every student deserves the opportunity for an excellent education.”

The theory (put simply) is that by reducing taxes more people will spend money, which will grow the economy and thus create more jobs. At times it makes sense. Most American’s did not save a lot of money and tended to spend more than they earned. When spending is high businesses do well, owners are confident, and are willing to take more people on. But this scenario is not what we are currently dealing with.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average Household Income has decreased to under 50 thousand dollars, which is very hard for a family of three or four to live on.

Household Income

When you have to pay for gas, food, and health insurance, it all adds up which takes up a big part of a families salary making it hard for them to spend money on items they don’t necessarily need. Of course the prices of the items they do need have risen in the past decade as well. Keep in mind that because these people are earning money the tax breaks are targeted toward them so they would spend more money. But history shows when taxes were lowered have not resulted in increased spending.

The Consumer Price Index looks at how much prices have risen or fallen on a quarterly basis. The chart below shows the percent change in the past decade, and you can see they have fallen sharply. A large part of this is because American’s stopped spending as much money, especially when there was a disaster such as in 2001 and the financial crisis of 2008. But levels still have not returned to where they were before the crisis and there is no reason to believe they will any time soon.

Percent in CPI Change

President Bush reduced taxes in 2003 and Obama extended those cuts in 2009 when they were set to expire. Any economist would be hard pressed to argue that those cuts had a great stimulative effect on the economy. While I’m probably beating a dead horse saying this, President Ronald Reagan did raise taxes as a compromise with Democrats when they reformed the system. For the reasons stated earlier it would not be a good idea to raise taxes on everyone right now, but it would be a good idea to raise taxes on those who have earned millions. The money could be used to either reduce the deficit or create jobs for infrastructure projects that need to be completed.

But instead of advocating for policies that would have a strong impact on the economy Obama and Romney are taking the easy route. Both are in favor of passing the trade agreements Obama recently signed into law with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama; Obama looks to be in favor of creating a oil pipeline with Canada while Romney’s job plan proposes more domestic drilling; and both jobs plans seeks to reduce taxes on small businesses and corporations.

While thousands of teachers are being let go around the country, and with states running out of unemployment benefits, it is not hard to see why American’s are doubtful of the country’s future. Obama has called for a millionaire’s tax before and Congressional Democrats have tried to push it through the Senate even though it has no chance of passing the House. But it was left out of Obama’s job plan and Romney has said he will not raise taxes on the wealthy. Both of them are putting out popular ideas that are not controversial in a time when the country needs bold action. The stimulus was bold, health care reform was bold, but neither went far enough to help the millions of Americans that need it.

The lack of action by political leaders has cumulated in the protests that started in New York and are starting to spread around the country. In 2008 people voted for change but have not felt or seen the effects of the programs Obama has put in place, mainly because there is still so much more to do. But playing it safe during an election year while the economy is still tittering will not create jobs or help the economy, which both candidates say they want to do.

Politico interviewed several lobbyists who argued “The underlying reason for this digital disconnect, numerous lobbyists say, is straightforward: They’d rather meet than tweet, plying a craft through the traditional but effective methods of sit-downs and phone calls uninhibited by 140 character limits.” To be fair it is hard to communicate complex legislation or a policy option in 140 characters, and would be hard to convince a member of Congress to change his or her mind by constantly instant messaging each other. Face to face meetings are always more beneficial and productive.

But another reason, which the story unfortunately does not get into, is that by not using social media and talking to each other in person allows them to speak honestly to each other. A member can’t admit on Twitter he does not understand the legislation that is about to be voted on, or has not had time to read all the memo’s the staff wrote for her. Even in “exploratory hearings” where the legislation is being “discussed” the whole thing is really an act to get names in the paper while most of the work is done in the back.

The majority of votes Congress takes are not life changing. It usually has something to do with an appropriation, mandates that states should or should not have to follow to receive money, or resolutions to change the name of a post office (or what’s left of them) and thank certain members of a members community. The bills that are heavily lobbied are discussed constantly between all groups that are for and against it. But these firms do not want the public to know who they represent. It is safer for them to fly under the radar and try and get as many clients as possible. While one year they could be advocating to increase oil production in the states, the next they could be hired by the nuclear industry to try and get Congress to appropriate funds to build a new plant or for Research and Development.

If you saw the movie Casino Jack you know what I am talking about. Firms hated the fact Abramoff was opening up restaurants and getting on the covers of magazines. It was bad for business. Just like any business they would rather be making money and the only mention in newspapers is from the advertisements they pay to put in them. Having conversations online is completely the opposite of what they want. Many top lobbyists have strong connections with members who they lobby and can be blunt with them. Can you, and should you be, honest on Twitter: of course. Do lobbyists want to be: no. They represent their client’s agenda to those in Washington that can affect policy and that’s it.

It is also not a lobbyists job to be Public Relations managers. Social media is a great way to get messages out to the public and give them information needed to make a decision. But lobbyists are skeemie insiders. At times it may not even benefit for them to use the public because it diminishes their ability to say to clients they need them. Only doing online campaigns, letter writing, phone banking, and other bread and butter methods, are cheaper than hiring someone on K Street but lobbyists and their firms need to air confidence in their ability to effectively communicate their message to Congress without all the hustle and bustle of a campaign. This is especially for the clients who have deep pockets but are not looking for the spotlight.

What also scares lobbying firms about social media is when they represent something so controversial that it could blow up in their face. No firm wants to be known as the one who represented a free trade act that wound up sending jobs overseas, or successfully passed a bill that appropriated funds to build a nuclear power plant that wound up having a meltdown. It is just not worth it, and neither is it for them to use social media.

In a story published in the Birgmingham Patch, the United Auto Workers local leader Louis Rocha said many of the plants employees were excited to see the President, and when it comes to the new trade agreement; “This is supposed to bring some more jobs here back to the country. … There’s a lot of good opportunity for growth here in Michigan.” Autoworkers have good reason to trust Obama, they won’t forget the auto bailout that saved thousands of jobs which helped today’s auto industry to thrive.

In January USA Today and Gallup asked Americans if they favor approving a free trade agreement with South Korea, and 41 percent were in favor while just 22 percent were opposed. While there have been many stories about factories closing because the companies decided to export those jobs to China, the International Trade Administration reported that U.S. “exports rebounded to near-2008 levels and contributed significantly to the United States’ overall economic recovery. U.S. exports of goods and services totaled $1.83 trillion, supporting millions of jobs.” Many Americans have felt this impact by understanding the cars they are building are sent abroad, and that the company they work for may make things in Asia but sell the items in North America.

You can give credit to Eminem, or maybe it is because their sports teams are doing well, but economists will tell you Detroit is doing well because of their ability to export their products. All three major auto industries have revamped their product lines and are reporting strong sale records. While the unemployment rate is still one of the highest in the nation, the good news is a recent report showed that jobs are coming back to Michigan and more jobs are available today than in 2009 when economists said the state hit rock bottom. But the question remains if Obama can show the American people they are better off with him than without him.

This is obviously going to be a tough sell. With unemployment hovering around 9 percent and U.S. GDP barely in positive numbers, many families are still struggling and want a different direction. Both Obama and now Senate Republicans have offered jobs plans that will go nowhere. But in this climate it looks like it is better to have plan then not. When Rick Perry said he would unveil his jobs plan in the last debate he got hammered. Even while policy wonks have been analyzing Herman Cain’s and Mitt Romney’s jobs plan, and pointing out its flaws, they still seem more prepared and ready to take the helm than the other candidates.

Obama also has a basic economic problem. Just because the auto industry is doing well does not mean the rest of the economy will start to roll again. That means the people who do not have the skills to work for Ford can still fall behind. This obviously is not Obama’s fault but he could take the blame for it. In the mean time he should be calling to put more money into Research and Development, allow colleges to start programs that will train people to enter new areas of industry, and despite the Solyndra scandal put money into companies that will help America continue to be a leading producer in the world. Some of these policies have already taken place such as with battery powered cars and increasing broad band accessibility.

None of the candidates are going to be able to prove one way or the other if their plan will actually work. While acknowledging more work still needs to be done the auto industry is one area Obama can tell a success story. Conservatives will argue that it has no chance of passing Congress (which it doesn’t), but when was the last time getting anything through Congress was easy?

The polls currently show a close race between the President in head to head competitions between some of the GOP candidates. As Obama is making the political rounds I can’t remember the last time he invoked any of his possible challenger’s names. The election is still a long time from now and the way Obama will be forced to defend his record will determine whether he will win or lose.

The small group of Republicans that were going to use the filibuster was not even on the final vote but the votes on the amendments before it. It would have been another example of Washington not able to get things done because of politics. The Republicans who wanted to use the filibuster here should be thanking Reid for saving them from looking like fools. Senators from both sides would have been on TV saying how much they want to stick it to China while those Republicans on the Senate floor would be talking nonsense. But there are plenty of examples that can be used of Democrats in the minority doing the same thing. This action should be used to start a process that gets rid of the filibuster altogether.

Politico reported that “While the rules change may not seriously affect the substance of pending legislation, the process employed by Democrats could be replicated in the future to overhaul bedrock rules like the filibuster. For that reason, both parties have tried to avoid employing such tactics to change the rules over the last several congressional sessions, including in a fierce 2005 battle that nearly limited the use of the filibuster.” But with the frustrations that are pouring themselves in front of Wall Street, the Capitol, and across the country, it is about time something changes in Washington.

Sometimes the filibuster has been used by the minority to appeal to their base, where in case Americans who do not want to see the legislation passed are happy to see the filibuster take place. But this is still always a small constituency. This allows Senators to debate things they know has no chance of passing. So why have the debate? Because it appeals to their base and is something the Senator can say they did when they ask for their constituencies vote in the next election. When George W. Bush wanted to pass immigration reform, the Senate debated for hours on what to do but could only agree that English should be the official language of the country. But both sides liked the debate so leaders let it happen. If the filibuster did not exist though, more votes would have been taken putting members on the record, which is something they did not want to do. If the filibuster was not part of Senate rules members would have been forced to take a vote.

It is also fair to argue that without the filibuster more Americans would pay attention to what their Senators are up to. Since Senators are up for reelection every six years, they can usually take controversial votes without having to worry as much about political consequences because voters get their frustration out during the election the vote took place in. The Senate though does not always have to take these votes because someone usually filibusters it. But if there are large amounts of legislation that come to the floor and controversial votes pile up, more news would be written about it and Americans would pay attention. If the Senate decided to vote on privatizing Social Security, and there wasn’t a filibuster for someone to stop it, think about all the calls and letters that would fill their offices.

Maybe more importantly, better legislation would actually be voted on in the Senate. Getting rid of the filibuster would not make politicians want to take controversial votes, so theoretically, there would be less of them. That means less politics and more compromise. No Child Left Behind was a controversial bill that not everyone was in favor of, but it had a large amount of representatives on both sides who voted for it. That makes it a lot harder for it to have been a issue for a competitor to bring up in the next election.
It is true that the founding fathers wanted the Senate to be a place where cool heads would prevail. That is why they set it up so Senators were not even elected but instead appointed by state legislatures. That changed of course when the legislatures could not decide on who to send to Washington. The filibuster is not even in the constitution, it is just a Senate rule. Politics are inherent in any government, and that’s OK, sometimes it is even a good thing. But when it is time for things need to get done, more times than not the filibuster has been used to protect a small minorities interest rather than deciding what is good for the country as a whole.

It was on a rock that greeted all the visitors that entered the ranch which the Perry’s have owned since the 1980’s. The campaign told the Post that once Rick first saw the rock at a Fourth of July barbeque he asked his parents to paint over the “offensive rock.” Of course we do not know if this is true or not, and the article speaks to people who say there was no paint on it. But does it matter? The real question is why did they keep the rock at all?

But as it remained in plain sight to everyone who walked by, the rocks contents and its meaning, could not have mattered to the Perry’s. This is land the Perry family has owned for over forty years, and for some reason, it never bothered them that the rock was there. It could not have been covered up well either, considering the reporter who visited the ranch could still see it, and if paint was used it must have been worn off but no one thought twice to cover it back up.

Rick Perry has talked how growing up in Texas shaped his views on life and politics. That can be said about anyone, but what does this epitaph say about Perry’s values? He wants to become President of a country where thirteen percent of the population is black. How can he say to them that he understands them and can represent their best interests? Black people in the U.S. have seen their unemployment rate double since the beginning of the recession, and it was not great before 2008 either. How can he now say to them his ideas will help them when he is thoughtless about their feelings?

What also struck me was how much information the Perry campaign had about the ranch. The article is 5 pages long and there is no way the journalists could have gotten all that information in such a short amount of time. No one could have. While they talked to neighbors, the campaign may have been ready to feed information to journalists knowing this story would eventually come out. There were specific as to when Rick had his name on the lease, the people who currently work at the ranch were not allowed to talk to reporters, and Perry is also quoted as saying they stopped using the entrance where the sign is located in the 1990’s.

Whatever the circumstances, Rick Perry knew this was going to come out and he was arrogant enough to think this sign would be OK. Perry knows there is a black population in Texas, as he likes to remind people in his stump speech, but it did not matter to him that the rock was in such plain sight while he was a state Senator or Governor representing the minorities in Texas.

I guess it is also surprising that it took this long for this story to arise since Perry has been Governor for almost twelve years. If Perry is serious about wanting to be President of the United States, he needs to fully explain why he had such a divisive phrase in the place where he took his friends, and where his mother and father still live.

It is the Fed’s job to keep an eye on the economy and make sure employment is high. That meant giving hundreds of billions of dollars to banks so they were able to keep lending money, and then giving them even more money when the entire financial system collapsed. All the bad loans banks made were, and still are, on the books of the Fed. That means (since the Fed runs on taxpayer money) American’s own all the bad bets banks made and now have to figure out a way to pay it back.

But if the economy does get going again the Fed would be able to pay those bets back. They have held interest rates at zero which is supposed to increase lending, and they found a way to give them more money with a policy called quantitative easing (QE), which they used not once but twice. While people disagree QE’s effectiveness most agree it helped to a certain extent because it gave banks more wiggle room. But banks are still afraid to lend and businesses are afraid to spend. But is this the Fed’s fault? Many analysts blame this economic quagmire on Congress because businesses leaders are unable to predict what will happen in the long or short term.

But Congress’ hands are tied as well. With every spending bill being seen as some sort of brinkmanship it has become increasingly harder to get any type of legislation passed. So instead of Congress doing something, Frank believes the Fed should have the power to do more. His legislation will have the Governors, which make up the Fed’s board, an elected position. This would replace the current system of the President nominating the Governors and the Senate having to approve them. In theory, this would make them accountable to the people and if the economy did not get better to their satisfaction they could elect new Governors. It would give them more influence because they can say the power of “the people” is behind them.

Frank is one of the leading voices in Congress when it comes to banking, but it seems he forgot that the Fed was not supposed to be made part of the political arena. Some things go beyond politics and the economy is definitely one of them. Those deciding how much the banks should have to keep in their reserve funds and what interest rates should be have an enormous effect on the types of economies we will be living in. These decisions are big enough to worry about, especially in these times that being reelected should be the last thing people making them should be thinking about. Besides, where else are we going to hear someone say it is American consumer’s fault the economy is still not getting better?

I also have to wonder what makes Frank think that people would want to run for these positions. While there are supposed to be 7 Governors on the board, the President has not been able to find 2 others who want the job. That’s either because the confirmation by the Senate would be too much for them, or they are asking themselves why they would want to get involved in trying to solve this mess? It should not come as a surprise that most of Obama’s economic team left after just two years. This is not a fun situation to be dealing with, no matter where you are sitting.