Republican critics have gone to town recently on President Obama’s energy policies.  The President has proposed tax incentives for companies to urge them toward the purchase of natural gas trucks in an effort to bolster the demand for an increase in domestic fuel supplies.

Republicans, however, have not been pleased with the way Obama has handled this situation and were especially perturbed when the President blocked the Keystone XL Canada to Texas oil pipeline.  Republican anger supposedly stems from their belief that using this pipeline would have created more jobs in the U.S. while simultaneously reducing the American need for oil from the Middle East.

Obama has spoken about the U.S.’s need for an all-encompassing strategy designed to create more energy resources in American, which would, in turn, create the jobs that he is criticized by Republicans for not looking after.  Obama’s so-called “green agenda,” which trumps the more traditional dependence on oil and gas energy, has been criticized as a move designed to further his chances in the upcoming presidential election, in which he seeks to pursue a second term.  He reportedly plans to start by focusing on natural gas after a visit to Las Vegas, which was the recipient of stimulus funding to allow one of their UPS facilities to invest in vehicles that run on liquefied natural gas.  The President believes that the American natural gas supply will last the country at least a century, and that its benefits would include cleaner power for U.S. jobs, transportation, and factories.  It could also help to create at least 600,000 new jobs.

Obama has also noticed an improvement in his poll numbers, and is now touring five states, including Iowa and Michigan.  This tour follows his State of the Union address in which he spoke fervently about his desire to reduce the inequality of American job incomes.  This has been a particularly sore note, as the economy continues its lack of improvement and Americans still find it difficult to locate a job that can adequately offer them support.  Recent approval polls, however, have suggested that the President is over the fifty percent approval rating that bodes well for the upcoming election year.

The President has also spoken recently about the natural gas boom in the United States, and how gas prices have dropped nationwide due to a surplus of gas as well as a relatively warmer winter.  The utilization of American natural gas would reduce dependence on foreign oil as well as provide cleaner fuel, a move that has been supported by both sides of Congress, which has been a debate concerned with energy risk management, especially on Obama’s behalf.

However, Obama will likely face obstacles in the form of Republicans who will seek to fight against his proposed natural gas truck, as they feel that that energy subsidies would cost too much.  Similar measures have failed in the past because of opposing parties, and most Republicans feel that the U.S. government should favor winning energy sectors and not the losing kind.

Evan Fischer is a freelance writer and contributor for Beecher Carlson part-time student at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, California.

UMICH.edu

After President Obama recently announced his plan to require that colleges and universities contain their tuition costs or face losing federal money, those heads of bastions of higher learning are all in a tizzy, citing over-involvement from the government.  But are their fears warranted?  After all, they have already been subject to severe state budget cuts in recent years.

And change isn’t that simple, according to Al Bowman of Illinois State, who feels that the deficit faced by most public schools cannot be so easily overcome.  He cited “fuzzy math” as part of Obama’s rationale for the plan, as decreases in state aid have made it a leap to tie federal support to tuition prices.  Illinois State, which has over twenty thousand students, has been forced to raise their tuition over forty five percent since 2007, from roughly $6,000 for an instate undergraduate to nearly $10,000.

Bowman’s response to Obama’s plan included his belief that the President assumes that universities should be more efficient, thereby operating with tinier state subsidies, and while more efficient states could be realized, those standards will be impossible to meet because of the loss of state financial support.

His suggestions include hiring more part-time or adjunct faculty and increasing class sizes, but that those efficient tactics would dilute the quality of education, which no one wants, especially as the U.S. has been roundly criticized as of late for lagging behind the rest of the global community, especially in the areas of math and science.

Mike Young, the president of the University of Washington, spoke out about Obama’s obvious lack of background knowledge or understanding of how the budgets at public universities function.  Universities are forced to tighten their belts, while the state is cutting subsidies and hiking up the cost of tuition to try to make up for extra efficiencies.

Obama’s plan, however, needs to be approved by Congress, which will be difficult to attain as partisan gridlock takes its toll.

During his State of the Union address, the President spoke about his many talks with university presidents who attempted to explain how technology has been helping to cut costs and spending, as well as course redesigns that are trying to get students out the door more quickly.  Obama spoke about his belief that, if more universities took these approaches, the end result would be more efficient and less expensive for everyone.

This announcement has been popular with students, however, who have complained about tuition hikes and the price of their loans for years.  Attending college has become so cost prohibitive that many Americans are questioning the value of higher education.  Of course, they may also turn to options such as applying for navy scholarships or undertaking a military education to help pay for school.  But for many, the army simply isn’t an option.

The bottom line for colleges and schools, according to President Obama, is that tuition hikes must stop, that they can’t assume that they’ll be able to make big increases every year.  Tuition prices must go down, the President said, or state funding will.

Evan Fischer is a freelance writer and part-time student at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, California.

While animal rights activism isn’t usually a subject that gets the blood boiling in Republican voters, many animal owners were appalled to learn that their top tier Presidential candidate, former MA governor Mitt Romney, was once accused of canine abuse toward his own family pet, an Irish Setter named Seamus.

This story has been reported many times in recent years. It was big media news in 2007 during the Republican primaries. With Romney once again considered a front-runner in the GOP primaries, the story has re-emerged with many asking the question:

Does America want a President who is capable of abusing a family pet?

It was 1983, and Gov. Romney took his family on a 12 hour road trip from their home in Massachusetts. Seamus, their four-legged family member, was along for the ride. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough room for Seamus inside of the vehicle. Instead of making room for the pet, Romney placed the poor creature inside of a dog carrier strapped to the roof of the vehicle traveling at highway speeds of 60-70 MPH or more.

Not surprisingly, in the course of the 12 hour long drive, canine excrement covered the roof and windows of the vehicle as the animal went into a terrifying shock and relieved himself inside of his carrier.

Aside from the emotional terror of being trapped in a tiny box with the wind in your face for 12 hours, let’s cover the true science behind this situation and what the dog actually experienced on top of the Romney family car.

According to aerospace engineering experts, at the speeds the vehicle was traveling, poor Seamus would’ve had 10 lbs of pressure per square foot beating against his little head. While the windshield would’ve still protected the front of the poor creature, the air surrounding him would’ve been so intense, little Seamus would’ve become physically exhausted.

Additionally, veterinarians expressed concern that the dog could’ve been severely dehydrated by the experience, and experts say that the very act of tying an animal to the outside of the car was illegal.

The incident itself has painted family values presidential candidate Romney in a very bad light. However, the news of this road trip broke because the former governor told the story to a local newspaper indicating that his ability to handle the situation in a calm, collected manner demonstrated a necessary Presidential quality of “emotion-free crisis management.” Romney’s desire to show that he can keep cool in a tough situation backfired, according to many Americans, depicting Romney as an unfeeling, despicable animal abuser.

So, the question remains. As Romney still sits comfortably as a top tier GOP Presidential candidate in the primaries, is a nation of people who consider their pets to be family ready to vote for a President who once put his own family dog in a life-threatening, emotionally and physically abusive situation? Do we even want to consider him as an option when he had the audacity to brag about the situation to a local newspaper?

Jennifer Kilkenny is a freelance writer and web professional who has published numerous articles online.  Her portfolio can be viewed here.

By Jennie

Oh, Rick – I’ve waited so long for us to be together. We’ve waded through so many murky waters – Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, the surprisingly sane Jon Huntsman – it seemed like this day would never come. Unfortunately, like pork left out on the counter for a couple of days instead of refrigerated, or a Hollywood star whose years of boozing and debauchery have ruined his once golden looks, you’re kind of past your prime. First of all, it seems redundant to make fun of someone who has basically made himself a walking joke. Second of all, though it’s tempting to bring up your bizarre debate  (and other) gaffes, gaffes that have lead to accusations that you are regularly drunk or high, or even to drag out the lurid gay rumors, there are actual serious issues regarding you as a candidate and a person that are worthy of discussion. So I’m going to try to be (mostly) serious:

Secession: this is an issue I have with Perry but also with his supporters. In reading about Perry’s comments on Texas seceding from the union, I’ve noticed that conservatives hasten to frame those statements as “jokes” taken out of context. Indeed, it doesn’t appear that Perry has ever seriously advocated secession (that I’ve found, anyway). But still…given the fact that Texas has already seceded from the Union once (um, how did that work out for them, I wonder?), and given that politician’s of Perry’s stripe generally expend a great deal of energy trying to prove that they are the most patriotic-est EVER, even “joking” about seceding seems like it should be a big deal. I still fail to understand the mindset of anyone who idealizes the Confederacy and yet claims to be an American patriot. If you’re a big believer in states’ rights, that’s fine. So were some of our founding fathers. But I think being a big supporter of states’ rights and being the biggest fan of the Union in all the land (you know, union, as in united, as in “The United States of America”?) are incompatible. Pick a side and stick with it. It’s like having a wife and a girlfriend and claiming to love them equally (insert applicable Newt Gingrich joke).

Capital punishment: Perry’s enthusiasm for killing the citizens of Texas has been unparalleled. So unparalleled that I have trouble finding up-to-date information on just how many executions he’s presided over; it’s at least 235, but for all I know he’s merrily vetoing stay requests as I type. We know that he doesn’t scruple over the execution of the mentally retarded (he vetoed a proposed Texas ban on mentally retarded inmates) or even the most likely innocent. When asked by NBC’s Brian Williams in a debate whether he ever struggled with the possibility of executing an innocent person, Perry replied:

“I’ve never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which — when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that’s required.”

I guess Perry never got around to reading David Grann’s excellent 2009 piece in The New Yorker on Cameron Todd Willingham – it’s a long read, but well worthwhile. The fact of the matter is, when you are shoveling people onto Death Row and executing them at the rate that Texas does, mistakes are bound to happen. In the case of Willingham, Perry is accused of going so far as to impede an inquiry (started after Willingham’s execution) into mistakes that may have been made in the case.

So what Perry was really saying to Williams, apparently, is not that he believes everyone who was executed in Texas under his watch was guilty. What he’s saying is that he doesn’t care.

HPV vaccine: Perry surprised a lot of people in 2007 when he issued an executive order mandating that girls in Texas should be given the HPV vaccine as early as age 11, before sexual activity was likely to occur. HPV can lead to cervical cancer. On the other hand, Perry surprised no one when it turned out that his former chief of staff had gone to work as a lobbyist for the manufacturer of the vaccine, and it became clear that Perry’s newfound interest in the sexual health of women was really an old interest in political expediency and cronyism. It was only notable for being so blatant – the ultra-religious-conservative Perry was advocating something that was obviously going to turn all teenage girls into sex fiends (well, at least according to the religious conservatives that opposed Perry’s executive order).

All in all, it’s pretty clear that Perry is morally bankrupt, in addition to being not too bright, homophobic and possibly racist (remember the hunting-lodge rock brouhaha? It seems like ages ago, but that story only broke at the end of September). In a field crowded with candidates who seem determined to see who can be the most awful, Perry manages to be a strong contender for the title. At least he’s a contender for something; thank goodness he’s no longer a serious contender for president of the United States.
.

By Pam

Legislation that would require a clean drug test as a condition of welfare cash assistance eligibility is expected to be a hot topic in many states this year.

The Department of Human Services in the state of Michigan said late last month it is in the process of developing a drug screening policy for welfare recipients. Michigan’s DHS spokesperson said, “We have determined it is feasible to do this testing. What the exact process would be — that’s still to be determined… it’s being discussed, and I’d say it’s more than just a discussion. It’s a push in that direction, but it is not a done deal.”

Supporters of Michigan’s plan are attempting to make sure that everything is in place and would survive any legal challenges before instituting a new policy. A previous plan from 10 years ago was derailed after only a few months by federal courts.

Michigan isn’t the only state. Last July, Florida’s drug testing law became effective only to be put on hold in October by a federal judge who issued an injunction preventing Florida’s Department of Children and Families from further drug testing.

Missouri’s drug testing law went into effect in August. Their law states that people who test positive or refuse to be checked and fail to complete a substance abuse program will lose their benefits for three years. If the households that lose their benefits due to failing drug tests have children, the state will appoint a third-party to receive benefits on the children’s behalf. If a recipient who loses their benefits due to a failed drug test can maintain drug free for six months, their benefits will be reinstated.

To find out more about the different state and federal legislative proposals to require drug tests as a condition of welfare program eligibility you can read the APSE Issue Brief.

Proponents of these drug testing laws say that welfare benefits funded by taxpayers should not go to people who are using illegal drugs. Critics say the legislation singles out one group of people with little reason and my be unconstitutional. What are your thoughts?
.