Victims of the Shutdown

Local Congressman Randy Neugebaur has recently taken some heat for chewing out a park ranger at the WWII Memorial. Congressman Neugebaur was upset over the fact that these rangers were keeping the Veterans from entering the memorial and barricading the site off from the public. And I don’t blame the Congressman for being upset; he had every reason to be. But the media has made the mistake of focusing in on the Congressman’s words with the ranger rather than looking at the big picture. 

With the ranger being a woman, Congressman Neugebauer was headed for trouble from the get-go. And that’s all that the media has focused on; labeling the Congressman as a bully and criticizing his actions. 
The Veterans are not the only victims of this Shutdown and the closing of the memorial. Step into the ranger’s shoes and try to get their perspective of the entire ordeal. When it comes down to it, they are just doing their job. I’m sure, at least I hope, that they do not agree with the Administration’s decision to barricade off the memorial and keep the veterans out. 

These are old, retired veterans for Christ’s sake. Many of whom arrive in wheel chairs and walkers after traveling from across the nation to pay their respects to fallen brothers of the war.

The rangers are only following orders from the top. The actions of the rangers and the closure are a direct reflection of Obama, not their own decision making. But what other option do they have? Given the choice between being furloughed or going to work should not be put on them, especially when it involves Veteran affairs. 

These rangers should not be forced to stand in between the Veterans and their hard earned memorial. Everyone can agree on that. These are the men that fought for not only our country’s freedom, but the world’s freedom from tyranny and oppression. It’s a general understanding, expected really, that you treat Veterans with the utmost respect for their duty to our country. But apparently the Obama Administration thinks otherwise. 

As for Randy’s decision to chew out the Rangers, I can see how in the heat of the moment he lost his temper. But he shouldn’t have to apologize for his actions. Instead, Obama should be the one issuing the apology to the rangers, not Randy, for putting them in that difficult situation. 

This sort of reaction from the public is expected, it does not surprise me that an elected official has finally confronted the issue in person like this. And I doubt this is the first instance of this happening. 
If Obama didn’t anticipate this kind of reaction from the public, he’s a fool. He should have foreseen the backlash from the closing of the memorial and took full responsibility for his actions instead of leaving the rangers to take the hit for him like that. 

The WWII Memorial is an open-air facility that usually does not require any type of staffing, so the idea of barricading off the site does not make sense to me at all. There are no guides, staffers, or any personal that focuses on the day to day operations of the memorial. Maybe a grounds keeper, but no real staffing is needed to run the memorial. If it was inside a museum or was inside a building that requires utilities and regular personnel on duty every day, then I would begin to understand the need to close off the site in order to save money. But that is clearly not the case. 

It costs more money to print out signs, put up barricades, and have rangers enforcing the closure. Of all the issues about the budget and how Congress wants to spend the money, this has to be by far the most foolish way to spend it. 

Previously furloughed park rangers were brought in to enforce the closure. Let that sink in a little bit. This means that before the closure of the memorial, these rangers were considered non-essential workers who were then furloughed. And now that Obama needs security to keep Veterans out of the memorial, these rangers are now considered essential workers. 

With the media shifting more and more of the blame onto the GOP for the shut-down, it’s starting to look as though this is all for political benefit for Obama and the Democratic Party. This is just another excuse to paint the GOP as the bad guys in this shutdown, making it seem as though the Republicans shutdown the Government single handedly.  But of course, it takes two to tango. The Democrats in the Senate have refused to pass any bill passed by the Republican controlled House, putting Congress into gridlock yet again. 

 It doesn’t really matter who is at fault to triggering the shutdown, the fact still remains that it was the Obama Administration’s decision to enforce close this and other memorials. 

US should not take military action in Syria

In this conflict, there is no lesser of two evils. On one hand we have the brutal dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad, and on the other there is the al-Qaida-backed rebel force. This isn’t an ultimatum where we have to choose which side to support. From a United States perspective, we must make decisions based off national interest.

While we would rather not have either party in power, there must be at least one solid reason to support one faction and not the other. We have to ask ourselves what we can gain from having this group in power. At this point, there really isn’t much either side can offer. Arming the rebels and lending support to them is a clear sign we do not wish to let Assad resume power. However, relations between the U.S. and al-Qaida are basically nonexistent. It’s a lose-lose situation when it comes to deciding who to support.

So now we have to look at it from a national security perspective. Whichever regime we leave to take power should obviously pose less of a threat to the U.S. than the other, but also preferably stand as a future ally. The big question people should ask themselves is whether Assad’s regime is a legitimate threat to the U.S., or would the al-Qaida-backed rebels prove to be a greater threat if they were to take power?

At the same time, doing nothing might make it seem as though we indirectly support Assad’s regime, thereby putting us into a catch-22.

This isn’t the time to step in and be the world police. If the U.S. wants to avoid war, but still maintain some role as a peacekeeper, we should follow alternate courses of action against Assad’s regime. Instead of kicking down the door, dropping bombs and arming al-Qaida-backed rebels, we should support refugee camps for the Syrian people and offer nonlethal aid to rebels, such as intelligence sharing.

One option the U.S. could pursue is to patch things up with Russia. Russia is the most globally recognized ally of Syria and could prove to be very useful in the conflict. Assad’s view of the West has a sense of trepidation attached to it, which has proven to hinder successful diplomacy. Russia, however, still possesses the ability to reason and negotiate with Assad. Russian support for de-escalating violence in Syria could be the most civil way of addressing the war.

The possibility of regional war comes as a consequence to western intervention in Syria. Assad said in an interview with Le Figaro on Monday that western military intervention in Syria would trigger regional war. That part of the world is already tormented enough with war and violence.

Syria is a sovereign state and is recognized as a legitimate government on the global stage, and the U.S. needs to respect that. With allies such as Iran and Russia, escalated violence in the region could move to the global stage.

We cannot afford another war. With the economy still not fully recovered and troops still out in the desert, it’s insane to think we are in a position to start another war. A Reuters poll conducted this week found that only 20 percent of Americans think the U.S. should take action against Syria.

With citizens having such little trust in the government nowadays, sending troops out to another dead-end war isn’t the way to go about improving approval ratings. Having such low support from the people has to say something about President Barack Obama’s chances at getting congressional approval to take action.

On top of that, more than $16 trillion worth of debt should be reason enough to stay put. The cost of the Iraq/Afghani war totaled to a little more than $1.4 trillion, as released by the Department of Defense comptroller, by 2013.

Back in the 1980s, the U.S. lent aid and arms to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to help combat the Soviet occupation. Too focused on the Soviets and caught up in our containment tactics, we failed to see the ultimate consequences of our negligence. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.

If we do end up taking action and going into Syria, we very well may find ourselves in another version of the Iraq war.

GOP's war on Obamacare

All other national issues facing the country have been the topic for debate on and off throughout the years, but one major issue still holds the title of the GOP’s Most Wanted. Ever since its creation and presentation in 2008, the Republican Party has waged war on Obamacare; vowing to repeal and rid the country of it as soon as they could. However, their tactics on attacking Obamacare have not been completely effective, and not a lot has changed since the early days of the war.

Of all the major national issues controlling the 2012 presidential election, health care seemed to be the signature issue. For President Barack Obama, Obamacare is the defining accomplishment of his 2008-2012 presidency.  So for Mitt Romney and the GOP, of course, this was one of the key points used in his 2012 campaign.  As part of the republican platform, repealing Obamacare is one of the more focused goals of the Republican Party.  

Ever since it was signed into law in March 2010, Obamacare has been seen as a controversial law by many Americans. With pressure from the Republican Party and other non-supporters, it was a shock to see the constitutionality upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2012.  

But what is all the controversy over?  In a Gallup poll taken in June 2012, 52 percent of Americans said they would repeal part, if not all, of the law. Similarly, in a 2012 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 56 percent of people surveyed were against the new Obamacare plan. Of course Romney’s campaigning and GOP propaganda has done its best to demonize this new health care plan and paint it out as exactly what America doesn’t need. There are many aspects to the new health care plan that don’t make much sense at all or seem necessary. Open any pamphlet or watch any ad on Obamacare and you’ll hear about how much it burdens businesses to provide health care coverage to their employees or how it drains $716 billion out of Medicare to fund itself. But, the real problem people and the Republican Party have with the new health care plan is the mandate. Nobody likes to be told what to do, much less buy something they may not be able to afford. Fail to comply with this mandate and one faces the penalty of an annual fee, which gets thrown up to the IRS, and nobody likes the IRS. With already low approval ratings for the IRS amid the whole scandal, I don’t see this plan gaining much more favor.  

When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, it was upheld not as a regulation of commerce, but as a tax. Another tax Obama promised he would not burden on the middle class. Of all the points the GOP has been attacking Obamacare on, I feel they haven’t pushed this fact as much as they should. The only thing Americans pull out of this new plan is universal health care, and of course that is a great idea many people would agree on. The problem then lies on the failure for Americans to fully understand, or have some understanding, of what Obamacare consists of and how it affects us, the medical community and our economy.  If Romney and the GOP would have hit harder on the fact that the new plan is a tax burden, I feel people would have a better understanding of why Republicans are so against this new health care plan.  
As mentioned earlier, this is probably the highlight to be recognized in Obama’s presidency, which is very surprising that this was all he managed to do during his first term, a term where his party controlled Congress yet still managed to claim the title of “The do nothing 112th.” Romney made a good effort in pointing out that in Obama’s first two years in office, during a Democratic Party majority congress, he didn’t get anything major passed or even come up with a balanced budget in more than 1,000 days.  This has got to be a red flag to Obama supporters and many undecided voters.  Like many Americans, I’m disappointed to see that in these past four years in office, Obamacare is all Obama has to show for himself.  

Three years out from the next presidential election, the GOP is still determined to kill Obamacare with promises that the next president will be Republican and will execute these promises. I do not know what issues will be facing America in the next three years, but I don’t doubt Obamacare will still be a dominating issue. As new phases of Obamacare begin to take effect, we may see a lessening focus on its eradication as people accept the new policies. However, if things turn sour in a hurry, as many —including myself — believe, we could find ourselves right back in November 2012 with candidates finely split between pro-Obamacare and anti-Obamacare.