Sequester problems but only for those who matter.

When you type sequester into google for news you will probably come up with a result like the one below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/faa-flight-delays_n_3134411.html 

Although there is a great deal to be said about how the FAA cuts will and are effecting air travel I believe there are far greater consequences to the sequester issue then longer lines at an airport.

Lets start with the voiceless people who are being affected by the sequestration. 70,000 kids in head start programs accross the nation will be cut, if you are unfamiliar with head start it allows  kids who cannot afford things like pre school to have the resources (education and cognitive skills) necessary to begin  kindergarten. This funding also provides 14,000 teachers with pay. So why aren't our elected official raising flags about this diminished educational program, why isn't the speaker of the house starting hash-tags about our youth who are losing out on a valuable asset that can brighten their future? Because we are talking about people who are not voters, and unfortunately in our degraded republic people are not being viewed as constituents whose issues are equally weighed. People are being looked at as political pawns and measured by how much voting power a group has or does not have. As person who has been first hand witness to educational cuts it is often only in rhetoric that our elected official hold us in esteem. I am a product of the California higher education system, a shining jewel of how higher education should be: affordable and available to all those directly in need of it. I only mention this because I have witnessed this system be cut several times during a shrinking California budget only to be made up by the students in tuition, unfortunately there are no scholarships for pre-schoolers, the head start funds are exactly that, and they cannot exactly afford to pay more tuition because these families are primarily poor and thus able to engage in the head start program, it is very unfair. In 2007 the head start program was authorized to also deal with homeless children, yes thats right we have homeless children here in America and their only way out of that situation is education. Obviously education is very near and dear to me because I believe the fastest way out of poverty is to be educated and have resources available to the poorest and most vulnerable because their options are already so limited.
The second group that I have found so absolutely voiceless are those in need of housing assistance, 140,000 of them by 2014. This group is related to the first being that most of the families that are able to access this resource earn less than 12,500 per year. Again these cuts also affect the same assistance to homeless people. But again there are no flags being raised there are no hash-tags being created there is nothing but silence and it seems that in a  country dedicated to equality it is unfair for Americans to stand idly by and let the FAA not be cut so that people who are more valued as voters don't have to stand in line while hundreds of thousands of people lose their housing and thousands of children lose their opportunity to learn.

If you are reading this I encourage you to share these ideas with the people you know, understand that the only we are going to change it is if we have regular people come together and bother our representatives. In Washington there are only two things that matter the amount of money one can get for the election cycle and the amount of voices that echo on the same issue and right now there aren't enough voices concerned about these ones.

Direct Democracy? Irrational legislation

In California, we believe deeply in democratic principle, yet it is almost as if we don't understand the founders message hidden inside of representative democracy. The ballot box system has cost us in ways that are not and cannot be understood at the time we propose the initiatives, mostly because we cannot even begin to perceive the variables involved in the interpretation of the law in the future. In its roots, direct ballot measure initiatives had the best intentions and for many years, ranging in type from regulating things considered social vice such as prize fighting to issuing bonds for the construction of UC berkeley. In the sixties it was used for civil rights and environmental reform, and most famously for proposition 13 which create not one but two severe problems for California. The first was too create property tax cap, which is great in itself because it allows grandma to stay in her home, however it also allows businesses, no matter how large their real estate empire, to pay limited taxes, Disneyland is a great example of this. Secondly it created the most binding language on a legislature when deciding on any fiscal policy, a super majority must decide to get on board, and as we have seen we can barely get together a normal majority to keep our state solvent. What these policies have done to our state were not thought of when instituted, how could one think that at a time when people were unable to keep up with their taxes due to unprecedented growth in California. When placed on the ballot the true nature of an initiative is often lost to passionate arguments that are not well founded in factual base, in proposition 13 for instance, language was inserted to require 2/3 vote, but peopel were so busy shouting about property tax and myopity they forgot to take in the long term effects of such language, or how it could be used against democratic progression. Since prop 13 we have seen a myriad of of other intiative and many of them have come from special interest groups pushing agenda in their benefit and selling it to the people as something in their best interest, the prisons for example were a major proponent in 3 strikes, well if we look at our prison system overcrowding now, maybe that prop wasn't such a good idea. The last such initiative was done by our governor, an emergency vote to decide that his budget reform ideas were the best, we decided they weren't, but why should he be able to have the power to go outside our elected officials and propse things that were already decided were a bad idea through our elected representatives. The ballot initiative was a good idea, the originator thought that people were smart and had the power to govern themselves, what I think he missed as is the problem with most of these reforms is how the power would be wielded. Because of this system our state is in dire straights, in july we were almost insolvent and we are moving toward a projected 8 billion dollar shortfall. The prop system is not being used as it was meant to, this is just one area of our legislative process that must be changed, because there is no way that the general public can have the necessary knowledge or foresight to make sound decisions.

Bailout with no Reform

As I was reading an article this morning, a couple of things that I was thinking about on the financial crisis were verified. The first is that the banks who were begging for bailouts are now opposing regulation as they always do. The president was on wall street to speak about the financial meltdown and how it could be allowed to happen again, but how can it not happen again if we the people do not regulate the industry that has the potential to devastate every aspect of American life, and destroy markets all over the world. It is obvious from their behavior previous, during, and after that these financial institutions cannot be trusted to regulate themselves as they are so vehemently arguing for. The argument that I hear is regulation will stall financial innovation, which laughable because sub-prime mortgages, were one of banking's finest innovations, taking that example one can argue that they need to stick to fundamentals and leave innovation alone for a while. Hopefully the president and congress can step up on this issue and create a plan and regulations so these banks will be held accountable for their practices, especially since the American people have to be there when they take the country down. The second thing that has fallen out of view, is that nothing has changed. As it currently stand the banks are still free to do as they please, of course everything has tightened up so they are not making the risky moves that they once were, but that's not due to regulation that's do to losing money for the stockholders, should another opportunity arise, a boom for example in some industry, the banks will create yet another bubble that will most certainly burst in everyone's face except those at the top. I do not want to see this happen, and I don't think America can handle any more recklessness from the banking industry, something must be done and our elected officials are the ones who need to do it, regulation should not take a backseat because of health care debates. I cannot agree that government would be given too much power, We elected these people to hold the power of deicison making, anything or anyone that has the power to change the entire outlook of our country should have oversight by the citizens, this is provided by our government.