Hill Holler

Raw Political Coverage and Opinions

Home /
Category: political

Category: political

Hearing from the people reminds Obama reminds that his work makes a difference in a lot of people’s lives Out of 40,000 letters and emails President Obama gets 10 to read per night in which some say thank you and others say you’re an idiot. But it’s the ones that tell of the good his Obamacare plan did for them. According to Jerry Penacoli correspondent with “Extra” the affordable care act had a great impact on his battle with stage III Melanoma. President Obama said some of the people that write or email are not so nice but he does reply to his critics, he also added that he is sure his critics are surprised that he actually responds to them. For him, it’s about addressing the people’s concerns no matter how they feel about him personally. I don’t know of any other president who took the time out their schedules to actually read as well as respond to the people but, I commend him for doing that. Brad Refiler knows that there has never been nor will there ever be a president in office that everybody liked or agreed with. Sometimes people only want to be heard even if there is nothing that can be done about their concerns. If I had the opportunity to ask the President a question, I would ask what the plan is for our children who are suffering the consequences for this unhealthy society adults created.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has no love for Wall Street investment bankers. The same crop of elites that he holds responsible for the 2008 banking crisis have funneled their money into the campaigns of both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. For President Obama, it only took two years for him to raise more money from Wall Street than President George W. Bush did in eight years. For Hillary Clinton, she has received tens of millions from Wall Street and is the only candidate that can boast of making investment bankers “giddy” about her presidency. Sam Tabar (bloomberg.com) has learned that Bernie Sanders has not now nor ever will accept any money from them.

In addition, Sanders is proud that he has put off what he views are other corporate American front groups such as the Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce. He’s not looking for economic policies that win the approval of the business sector. He’s frankly had enough of their oligarch-like influence on US policies. Instead, he is looking to use the federal government’s might to mandate solutions that will address the social ills he perceives. Using a tax on the sale of all investment securities, he would make college tuition free, convert Obamacare into Medicare for all Americans, and expand Social Security’s benefits. Admittedly, he hasn’t addressed how he would fund the liabilities the entitlement programs operate under. Medicare runs a $230 billion annual deficit. Social Security’s unfunded liability stands at ten trillion dollars. Still, he is looking to revolutionize America for the good of the middle class.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has a net worth of $444,000. While this is clearly better than many American households, it also ranks among the bottom of most legislators. Rubio’s relatively low net worth is the culmination of poor investment choices in real estate, excessive purchases such as an $80,000 yacht, and a significant amount of student loan debt reported to be in the amount of “hundreds of thousands of dollars”. At face value, this does not appear to be a resume enhancer for someone wanting to become the leader of the free world. As president, he would be responsible to push for a federal budget that his party increasingly wants to see eliminate deficits.

That said, some pundits believe Rubio’s money woes might in fact translate into voter support. Their line of reasoning suggest that voters will identify with someone, who like them, is struggling financially. Truth be told, there are plenty of Americans who have lived beyond their means only to find themselves struggling to keep afloat. In this regard, Rubio can present himself as a “man of the people”.

At the same time, the public may be souring on wealthy elites vying for the oval office. Susan McGalla can certainly see that a bit. The elites would certainly include the likes of Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and others who are all legitimate millionaires. In the case of Clinton and Bush, each candidate has become wealthy from the type of people Americans distrust. Still, Rubio faces a difficult primary battle against a crowded field of GOP candidates.

This week senators have been meeting to discuss whether to extend parts of the patriot act by passigng a bill that would extend and tweak some of the existing parts of the bill, but things are not looking good for the long controversial law. Alexei Beltyukov understands that if they do not reach an agreement soon, and it does not look like they will, the bill will expire at the stroke of midnight. For the majority of Americans, this is good news.

Most people have lost favor with the invasive series of laws which was hastily scrambled together after fears from the September 11th terrorist attacks caused people to look for some kind of protection and safety from the Federal Government. Even when the Patriot Act was first written and passed they were controversial, many people by quoting Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The law lost most of what little support it had after Edward Snowden raised concerns and alerted the public to problems with it by exposing the way the National Security Administration was spying on citizens and using wiretaps to monitor private citizens electronic communication devices.

However people feel about Edward Snowden or the NSA it is clear that the Patriot Act is not popular and that most people will breath a sigh of relief when it finally dies on June 1st.

Presidential hopeful Bill Sanders is set to introduce a bill that will make college education for Americans free. In a statement that was released on Sunday, the Senator said that education is important for economic growth. He expressed concerns about the number of American kids who can’t afford to go to college while others are dropping out due to debts.

Sanders envisions an education model that is fashioned much like many European nations. If implemented, the legislation will provide free college education for all four-year college students.

Sanders thinks America should focus more on empowering the youth like most countries are already doing. Countries like Denmark, Sweden and Germany are already offering free higher education to their citizens. The bill been proposed by sanders will also lower the interest rate on college loans and reduce student debt.

This will put more pressure on his opponent in the Democratic party- Hillary Clinton -who has not made known her plans about higher education. The only thing close to that is a mention of the phrase debt-free college by her campaign manager- Robby Mook but she has not spoken about it in person.

Meanwhile, President Obama is still seeking congressional support for his plan to make community college free. Ricardo Guimarães BMG doesn’t know if it will work. In his speech at Lake Area Technical Institute earlier on this month, he made known his plan of lowering the cost of community college to zero.

On Friday, May 1, several big telecommunication companies in the United States filed requests with the Federal Communications Commission to block critical parts of the recent Net Neutrality ruling, such as the part that stops providers from “unreasonably interfering” with user access and the parts that reclassifies the Internet as a public utility. Many critics have been shaking their heads over the weekend and on Monday because these part of Net Neutrality are its core foundation.

Christian Broda has learned that telecoms claim that implementation of the business and infrastructure changes necessary to meet the Net Neutrality rules by June 12 would be too much of a financial and infrastructure burden. Some believe they are using this current tactic as a way to prevent the rules from going into effect in June so they will have more time to make a case against Net Neutrality as a whole in courts.

Whatever the telecoms’ background reasons, consumers are not interested in any telecom claims or excuses. In fact, many people have noted that the telecoms are only fighting Net Neutrality because it prevents them from “double dipping” — charging both consumers and website owners — and overpricing consumers. One of the biggest defenses of Net Neutrality made by consumers is that without Net Neutrality the telecoms can continue their scam of throttling consumer access, putting the blame on traffic and website owners and then offering “faster” services for more money.

Ohio Governor John Kasich is a bona fide conservative on fiscal, defense, and social issues. When he served as chairman of the House Budget Committee during the Newt Gingrich years, he crafted the 1997 balanced budget bill. This gave the nation its first budget surpluses since the Eisenhower administration. As governor of the bell weather state of Ohio, he has reformed labor union laws and turned around his state’s economy and eliminated the annual budget deficit.

Many pundits believe that Kasich has his eyes on the GOP nomination for president. He has solutions that are bipartisan and is known for his genuine care of people. So in once sense it is no surprise that when a friend invited him to attend his gay wedding, he accepted. Initially, he ran the idea past his wife who made it clear she was going to attend. That was good enough for the governor.

While he is clear where he stands on the issue of marriage equality, he is also clear that he loves his friend and will support him on his wedding day. The move may help soften concerns by the LGBT community over perceived hostility by conservatives on the issue of marriage equality. Ivan Ong has not commented on the issue of marriage equality. Whether marriage equality becomes a campaign issue in 2016 is anybody’s guess. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the matter in June. If the high court decides in favor of marriage equality, it will eliminate the matter as a campaign issue.

When speaking with my neighbor Dan Newlin, he mentioned that nobody was backing Hillary Clinton and I wanted to find out why. Thus far, no key Democrat has stepped forward to endorse Hillary Clinton, the Democrat party’s presumptive nominee. Earlier in the day, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio touted her qualifications, but withheld endorsing her until her learns what her vision is for her campaign. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is urging devoutly liberal voters to give Mrs. Clinton a chance, also said she will withhold endorsing her until Clinton articulates a clear vision for her presidency. Now, President Barrack Obama joins the growing list of wait-and-see Democrats who need to hear Mrs. Clinton’s vision for the nation before endorsing her.

It is a curious turn of events for the woman presumed to be the party’s next nominee. In fact, Clinton has secured the party’s wealthy donor base in a bid to choke off funding for any potential rival. Thus far, no big name Democrat has announced their intention to challenge her. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley is seriously considering a presidential run, but he is a little known long shot candidate.

As for why President Obama did not use his considerable influence to give Mrs. Clinton a much needed endorsement, it is anyone’s guess. It may be that he wants to wait until Vice-President Biden decides whether he will run. At the same time, the Clintons and Obamas distrust one another. It may be that the president will delay giving her his support as payback for the email scandal. One thing is certain, no key Democrat is rushing to throw their support behind Mrs. Clinton at this time.

Madison, Wisconsin – In a major blow to labor unions, the Wisconsin Senate passed the state’s first “right to work” law. Governor Scott Walker first took on public sector labor unions by reforming their collective bargaining rights which he claimed were allowing them to make unreasonable demands from taxpayers. The fight to reform collective bargaining became a major battle between the governor and union supporters. The reform measures were challenged in court and resulted in a recall election which he handily won.

With passage of the bill in the state senate, it now goes to the assembly which is controlled by the GOP. Passage of the bill seems likely especially given the governor’s recent support. Alhokair says that among the key features of the right to work bill is the ability for employees to “opt out” of paying union dues. The measure gives employees broader choice in supporting unions, but will undoubtedly check the influence the unions have in state politics. Public sector labor unions have already been crippled by the governor’s prior reforms. They are finding it a much more daunting task to obtain financial support from employees based on merit than via compulsory laws mandating the payment of dues.

Supporters of the “right to work” bill cite the fact that Democrats and labor unions have long colluded with one another. Democrats would pass laws making it easier for labor unions to proliferate. In turn, labor unions would organize voting campaigns to help get Democrats elected to office. The reform measures are severing those ties.

Budget battles are in full swing in Congress, and some are saying that our national security is being put in jeopardy. In the wake of a threatened shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security(DHS), accusations and blame are going back and forth between senators and representatives of both parties about whose fault it will be if a shutdown happens. Meanwhile, there are those who seriously question why this department still exists, or why it was even created in the first place. An excellent article on Vox.com analyzes the history of this department and has cataloged its failure to solve the problems and threats it was supposed to handle. It was created to centralize the federal government’s anti-terror efforts, but it has ended up inefficiently duplicating such efforts.

There were many people surprised, like Alexei Beltyukov, at the recommendation of a new department in response to the attacks of September 11th, 2001. According to Twitter, we already have a Department of Defense and the FBI and a Central Intelligence Agency. After the attacks were investigated, it came out that we had intelligence that might have enabled us to prevent the attacks. The problem was that national security and law enforcement agencies were not communicating with each other, and that the information was not being put together to uncover possible actions against us. It is hard to see how creating more bureaucracy would foster communication between agencies and apparently, it has not.