Voting ID Laws, Long Over Due

There has recently been a few states, that are passing laws that make it a requirement to have a government issued ID present at the time of voting such as South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee, among a few others. 

Some of these laws are still able to be reviewed by the Department of Justice because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still in effect that they can review any voting laws passed by select southern states, such as the law in South Carolina. 

These laws are highly controversial but it is clear that the passing of these laws would only prevent cheating or people who are not citizens from voting to affect the lives of people who are actually registered voters and citizens of America. Critics of these laws say that they will prevent people from actually showing up due to the “burden” that will be created by having to actually obtain a government-issued ID. However this is just absurd, because if a person is too lazy to get a government ID, which is easy to obtain if you are who you say you are, and have the documents required, which every citizen should automatically have.

These laws are also avoidable by citizens who are too elderly to get out to obtain ID by getting an affidavit. The notion that this law is discriminatory against the poor and minority, is absurd. If getting an ID requires the same process for every race and age, it is not discriminatory, and therefore it is not wrong to ask for this at the polling booth. This law should have been enacted a long time ago and is only a protection for the American people who deserve to know that their votes will not go to waste because some people chose to cheat or vote when they are not even citizens of our country. 

Democratic mob violence, Case and Point

In the article “Obama: Hope, change, and the occasional sex dream”, Ann Coulter is talking about the “mob-mentality” that seems to overtake many of the liberals views, and that is usually accompanied with violence and contradictions. This article first caught my attention because I have not seen many articles that actually dont defend the liberal view point. I feel like most of the mainstream media that I see every day actually has a liberal/democratic point of view and it was my eye as different to see something from a republicans opinion who seemed to have more of the same opinion as I do. I think Coulter is trying to address the audience of the public in general. Probably appealing more to conservatives, but still trying to prove the point to liberals that a lot of times their actions do not line up with what they speak ideologically, contradicting themselves frequently. Coulter gives multiple examples of her views on liberals. Her example of Paul Kanjorski saying that there needed to be an “atmosphere of civility” only a few months after he had said they should put the republican candidate for governor of Florida up against a wall and shoot him, shows how the democrats have shown to have a contradictory attitude on issues, often times promoting this mob view of violent protests and riots. I think Coulter’s use of evidence to explain her opinion gives her a certain amount of credibility because she is not simply throwing out statements without backing them up. However I do think that she is making the statement very broad, applying it to all liberals, when in reality there can be examples found of mob mentality among republicans just as there is among liberals and their leaders. I do also like her point that Democrats often “hype up” a candidate running for an office to the point that they do become a human idol, where people are asked to put an unreasonable amount of faith and hope in a single person with unrealistic proposals and promises only to have our expectations greatly un-met. Although Ann Coulter can be very harsh and direct in her points, often fueling a fire much like the Democrats she strongly opposes, her theories are always backed up with evidence and seem to be based strongly on examples she clearly points out. 

Prohibition-Era alcohol laws need updating

In the commentary “revamping alcohol Laws”, the author is discussing the problems with the current prohibition-era alcohol laws. He makes a good point saying that by raising the alcohol tax will not generate revenue or create jobs because in actuality, this will just cause less people to buy alcohol, based upon the common principle of supply and demand. If the price of the good goes up, the demand for it will go down, therefor the higher tax will actually do the opposite and decrease revenues. The author also gives more reasons why the higher tax is detrimental. He believes that the higher alcohol tax will damage local economies by burdening small businesses and customers who are already in financial trouble because of the recession. His point that over 90 percent of alcohol taxing attempts have failed is very persuasive because we have to learn from our past and find new ways to solve our problems. He gives an even better argument when he negates what a previous writer had stated. Some believe that allowing liquor sales on Sunday would just spread the 6 day sales across a 7 day period. However Cressy, the author of this commentary, gives clear facts thats every single state that has passed modernized alcohol laws has seen a great increase in revenue by selling on Sundays. The fact that the has facts to back up his arguments are very persuasive. By referring at the end of his letter to the laws as “prohibition-era” it gives the feeling to the readers that we indeed seem to be out-dated. We update all of our other laws, why have we still yet to update the laws from an era that was quite a long time ago. I believe that the author is intending to reach people who support the current laws and try to show how allowing liquor sales on Sunday is actually beneficial to everyone and can stimulate the economy. He is probably trying to reach policy makers and politicians as well to see that they can lower the taxes and get a better result another way. The author, Peter H. Cressy, is actually very reliable in his letter because he is the President of the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. and has a great expertise in the area. The fact that he has this title gives him some credibility and believability when readers see that he actually has reasons behind his opinions. 

Talk of Reducing Tax Breaks is Just Talk

It has become a huge topic among every politician currently in office, or running for an office, our nations growing debt. Found in the New York Times, this article is very informative on how many of the politicians have proven to be self-seeking and unwilling to compromise or give up their own tax breaks that they have helped to create and pass themselves. A tax break is a deduction or “break” on taxes that is awarded by the government to promote a particular business activity or promote economic growth. A main example in todays political spectrum is the tax break for many small beer breweries. Politicians constantly discuss how reducing the amount of tax breaks would raise money for they government to reduce debt, however this is threatening to many because Republicans and Democrats alike have grown accustomed to rewarding their supporters with these tax breaks. This articles is worth taking a look at because it provides a look into the true motivations of many politicians running for office today, seeking to promote their own well-being rather than help the nation. I feel like this article is very relevant to us as Americans, and students, as opposed to other articles because we have many decisions coming up as to who to vote for, and we often wonder why the American debt seems so unchanging. This article provides an insight into why and who is behind these important decisions, un-moving in their own personal achievements rather than the good of the nation.