Tag Archives: Opinion

Republican Party Members:

Republicans to Blame For Shutdown and Debt Ceiling Crisis

Republican Party Members:

Republican Party Members:

By: Joe Suszczynski

Congress thankfully opened the government back up by voting to end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, which did not let the country go into default. However this averted crisis should only get so much praise as funding for the government is only extended to January 15, 2014 along with the debt ceiling being extended to February, 7, 2014. The government is essentially doing what college student normally does when writing a term paper: puts it off and keeps procrastinating on when to start and complete it.

The insane part about all of this is that this whole government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis could have been avoided. Yes, the crisis was averted, which is great and I’m happy that we did not default, but that it is not the point. America did not need to be subjected to a government shutdown costing thousands of jobs for honest hardworking people along with coming down to the wire when making an agreement on the debt ceiling. Congress needs to get its head straight, because it’s currently in an orifice where it doesn’t belong.

Republicans should take a lot of the blame for this crisis. Although, it should be noted that 87 Republicans in the House and 27 Republicans in the Senate voted for the deal. They should get some credit because they played ball and put the country ahead of their politics. However 18 senators and 144 members of congress voted against the bill, all of whom are of the Republican Party. There was not one Democrat, in either house, who voted against this bill. Counting both houses 162 Republicans would have rather have the country default than voting yes on the bill.

That is an utterly despicable and unpatriotic thing to do. It is unpatriotic to let your country be financially destroyed because of your own personal politics being clouded of what needs to be done for the sake of the people you represent.

The problem with the Republican Party is a small sect within the party itself, the Tea Party, is causing all the issues in both Houses. You’d think that a small part of a bigger party would not be a problem, but it is.

After his 21 hour charade of a filibuster Senator Ted Cruz, a prominent member of the Tea Party Republicans, is still out to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. According to an aide, Cruz does not rule out another chance of a government shutdown in the future. I hope that he isn’t serious about not ruling out another government shutdown. The government shutdown cost America billions of dollars so what would possess the senator to do something like this again when it could create more resentment within Americans?

It is completely asinine to the point where even members of his own party are speaking out against him. Arizona Senator John McCain called Cruz a “wacko-bird.” Tennessee Senator Bob Corker criticized Cruz’s filibuster and has said, “I’m just asking the question, is it more important to the senator from Texas and the senator from Utah (Mike Lee) that the people around the country watch this vote, or is it more important that we have a good policy outcome from our standpoint?”

Cruz really needs to dial it back now that the government is back open for business and the popularity of Republicans have been going down. Pew Research Center currently has Republican disapproval rating at 72%. That isn’t very reassuring when nearly three quarters of Americans disapprove of the Republicans in congress.

It is time for the Republicans to stop obstructing the government and start working with it because if they don’t and keep staying the course then their popularity will go down and will potentially cost them seats in the House and Senate in future elections.

The modern Republican Party has been around over 150 years now and has boasted some great presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, but as of today they are beginning to show some signs of instability. The Tea Party has been driving the Republican base more and more to the right where even moderate Republicans cannot get elected. The moderates have either been thrown out of office or forced to keep moving right on the issues at hand.

The fringe elements of a political party should not be the place to set up the base of the party because it is so extreme there would not be any room for any type of compromise, which is essential to running a multi-party government. Republicans need to start moving and advocating more centrist or center-right positions in order to gain any favorability with the American people.

If the Republicans keep moving too far to the right, they just might fall off the cliff and the party will be no more.

Letter To The Editor Graphic

Letter To The Editor: Campaign Etiquette

To the Editor:

My name is Matthew Hubbard, and I am a candidate for Senior Class President.  I recognize that statements have been issued publicly against me in regards to a misappropriation of student fees to fund my own campaign. While I have nothing acrimonious to say against either of my opponents, I wish to put those claims to rest.

It was stated in a Letter to the Editor last week that I was caught in the office making use of student activity funds to print and hang flyers for my campaign. This accusation was made in complete assumption and holds no fiber of truth.

On the Saturday prior to the publication of the accusations against me, a fellow senator and I met in the Student Government office before going out to hang publicity around campus.  The Senator mentioned brought previously printed posters, along with his own personal supplies, to the Student Government office. While we were discussing where to campaign and hang flyers, another one of my fellow Senators, and opponent in the campaign for Senior Class President, entered the office and took notice of the flyers that were sitting on the desk.

There was no point at which I was approached about the validity of the assumptions that were consequently made. I was not asked nor given any opportunity to set straight the facts of the assumptions. The alleged truths written against me were issued factitiously as part of one individual’s aggressive campaign.

I wish to make very clear; I will not run a negative campaign. I have nothing acrimonious to say of either of my opponents, but I will not tolerate libel against my name. My objective is simple: represent and honor the students of Central Connecticut State University.  I will continue to work diligently to make this year memorable for every student at this institution, and will continue to do so representing the highest forms of respect and professionalism.

 

– Matthew Hubbard, SGA Senator At-Large

Candidate for Senior Class President

Letter To The Editor Graphic

Letter To The Editor: Government Shutdown Harms Americans

To the Editor,

At 12:00 AM October 1st the Federal Government “shut down”. The federal Government’s fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th, and this year Congress could not agree on a budget, primarily due to the partisan divide on the issue of Obamacare. With no budget for the next fiscal year, federally run programs and jobs have been halted. House Republicans insist on passing any new spending bill that includes provisions to defund, derail or otherwise chip away at Obamacare. Senate Democrats are just as insistent that the spending bill will not.

As Congress continues to be stuck in a stalemate; the American People Suffer. Over 800,000 people are not going into work today, while millions of others are, and are not sure of whether or not they will get paid. Congress has agreed that the Military will get paid for their work along with other “essential” staff, including Congress themselves.

This argument has to end. The fact that Congress cannot agree and will not compromise is utterly unacceptable. To quote a former United States President, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. Abraham Lincoln was correct; these childish antics have to stop. Regardless of whether or not Republicans in the House believe what they are fighting for is just, they simply cannot win this debate. This shut down is weakening our economy, our political system and our image as the greatest democracy in the world. I encourage Americans to write letters to their elected representatives and remind them that they were elected for a reason, that reason being to better America.

Austin Swan, SGA Commuter Senator.

routes_systemmap

UPASS Proves Useful For Students

By Danny Contreras

On August 26th, 2013 CCSU began its first year providing students with U-Pass, a CT Transit-valid boarding pass that can be used in every major metropolitan area in Connecticut, including Hartford, New Britain and New Haven.

The U-Pass will not only provide commuters from nearby towns a chance to save money on gas, but also to save money from buying the CT Transit Monthly Pass which is priced at $47. The U-Pass will primarily replace the CCSU Shuttle Bus.

While the Shuttle Bus provided rides to CCSU at certain intervals during the day, U-Pass allows students to travel to CCSU at their convenience, and the experience is by far more enjoyable than waiting for the Shuttle. At times, the Shuttle service becomes unreliable—especially given the intervals at which it stops.

Overall, the U-Pass program is one that will be better integrated in the future as CT Transit builds their CT Fastrak program which will include rail services from Hartford to New Britain; the program offers commuters a chance to bypass traffic on I-84 and local roads.

From a personal experience, the U-Pass is a much needed cost-saver. The service also provides flexibility with my schedule that I could not enjoy with the Shuttle Bus service. In addition to saving me $188 over the course of a semester, it allows me to do any errands before or after my classes. Additionally, it allows me to plan for more activities on campus that the Shuttle Service would otherwise not allow me to reach on time.

It also helps the student with travel expenses outside of CCSU. The CT Transit services that work from Downtown Hartford connects to major hubs in West Farms’ Mall, Manchester, East Hartford, West Hartford and Middletown. It allows students who need part-time work to get jobs in any of the surrounding cities, including New Britain.

U-Pass is a service from CCSU is a welcomed advantage. It connects commuters to CCSU, and residents to major hubs where they can maximize New Britain’s proximity with Hartford, Manchester and West Hartford. It provides students with a chance to explore New Britain’s Art Museum or Hartford’s Wadsworth Athenaeum.

The pass works from when it is issued until the end of the semester. The opportunities offered by the U-Pass are more than just convenience; it is a symbol of connectivity and one that resonates throughout CCSU.

Is it better than the service it replaced? Yes. Can it be improved? Only if it gives us superpowers: the U-Pass is by far one of the best things offered at CCSU this year.

5422065478_4d158ba852_b

CCSU Students Share Their Thoughts On Gun Control

By Kassondra Granata

On Dec. 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Since this event, President Barack Obama as well as other leaders around the country have taken action implementing new gun laws in hopes to prevent this from happening again.

Obama, in his initiative to decrease gun violence, has been executing legislative proposals and executive orders. These proposals range from congressional actions such as requiring criminal background checks and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, to executive actions such as issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system, to starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

On Feb. 21, Vice President Joe Biden spoke with others at Western Connecticut State University on gun control.

“We have to speak for those 20 beautiful children who died 69 days ago,” Biden said, according to an article in The New York Times. He also noted the six staff members who tried to save them. “There is a moral price to be paid for inaction.”

Also present at the debate, Conn. Gov. Dannel Malloy proposed tougher, stricter gun laws for the state. Malloy said he plans on closing loopholes and banning the weapons that are used to cause events such as Sandy Hook.

“Two months ago, our state became the center of a national debate after a tragedy we never imagined could happen here,” Malloy said in a New York Times article. “We have changed. And I believe it is now time for our laws to do the same.”

 

 

 

 

In light of these recent laws, students at Central Connecticut University voice their views on gun laws and the Obama Administration’s efforts with gun control:

 

Pro-Gun:

  • “The new guns laws are not aiming to fix the problem, they are aiming to make things more difficult for the average law abiding citizen. To fix the problem we need to focus on the mental aspects and enforce the laws we have and go after the criminals. I’ve been shooting since I was three years old ive been shooting since I was five. I own my own gun business and have been part of gun club for three years now and I have been club president for two years. I have worked at a gun store and have worked in the gun industry before.” -Thomas Minutelli, president of the Rifle and Marksmanship Club at CCSU.
  • “The new guns laws are not aiming to fix the problem, they are aiming to make things more difficult for the average law abiding citizen. To fix the problem we need to focus on the mental aspects and enforce the laws we have and go after the criminals. I’ve been shooting since I was three years old ive been shooting since I was five. I own my own gun business and have been part of gun club for three years now and I have been club president for two years. I have worked at a gun store and have worked in the gun industry before.” -Thomas Minutelli, president of the Rifle and Marksmanship Club at CCSU.
  • “I am very pro gun. I just started shooting this year. I joined gun club because I wanted to learn how to protect myself just in case anything does happen mainly because I am living in New Britain right now. If someone is going to attack me I’d rather have as many bullets between them and me as possible.” -Brittany Levine, member of the Rifle and Marksmanship Club at CCSU.
  • “There are a constitutional right as opposed to an occupation that some people have. To some people that is just a hobby but for the vast majority of Americans it should be a right and is protected by the constitution.” -Jack Kelner, co-president of the Rifle and Marksmanship Club.
  • “I support stricter gun control, but I myself use guns for hunting and I have grown up with them my entire life. I support universal background checks; I do not support the assault weapons ban. I think there should be screening for mental health illness. With the assault weapon ban, I do not really support that because sometimes people do not know what an assault weapon is. People should be educated with them though, learn how to use them. I was always taught about the proper way to use guns.” -Matthew Denno, CCSU student.

 

Anti-Gun:

  • “I think we need more gun control. We have way too many guns out on the streets and we do not need military grade weapons. The Second Amendment is not interpreted correctly anymore. That was originally for a militia which we really do not need at the moment. Leaving the public with the access of so many different weapons is harmful.” -Kory Mills, SGA senator.
  • “I don’t think that people should be able to have them too much. Especially automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, even pistols to an extent. Having a shotgun or a hunting rifle isn’t too big of a deal, but other than that no one should really have them.” -Dan Mcallen, CCSU student.
  • “I definitely agree with the permits and the background checks. I think more security would help. I am definitely anti-gun, but I don’t see a problem with the permits that are going on now that are able to allow families to have guns. I am kind of neutral in that aspect.” -Nicole Pourier, CCSU student.

 

How is Obama doing?”

 

  •  “I am not a fan of these guns laws. I agree that there should be mental health checks; there are too many people who are mentally ill and are not capable of understanding the responsibilities of owning a gun that own one.” -Brittany Levine, member of the Rifle and Marksmanship Club at CCSU.

 

  • “The laws that have been implemented in the past have shown that there is no evidence that it has changed anything. There are not many facts and statistics that they have done anything to stop crime. If they want to help anything and improve society then mental health is what we need to be addressing.” -Jack Kelner, co-president of the Rifle and Marksmanship Club.

 

  • I think Obama is doing a lot of talk, but I don’t think he is going to get anything concrete through.” -Matthew Denno, CCSU student.”If I was Obama I would tell the NRA to go away. I would get stricter gun control. He is definitely on the right path, but he needs to be a little bit harder on it. It is the beginning of his second term, but he will get more done as it comes to a close.” -Kory Mills, SGA senator.

 

  • “We need to go after the people. We need to deal with their issues other than worrying about the red tape. We need to deal with the mental handicapped. We need to help the people first, go after the criminals.” -Thomas Minutelli, president of the Rifle and Marksmanship Club at CCSU.

 

 

To hear more student feedback: http://centralrecorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Gun-Control-Sound.mp3

or go under “Multimedia.”

barry bonds

Steroids Are A Part Of The Game

By Matt Aveni

With every team in the major leagues reporting to spring training, the top stories are not about who will win the World Series this year or if the Angels’ huge offseason moves will bring the title back to LA. The biggest conversation around the MLB is performance enhancing drugs.

We no longer can focus on the game we all grew up loving, but just who is cheating and who is not. Ryan Braun has been linked again to PED’s.  A more recent report has come out that he owes Anthony Bosch (well known supplier of PED’s) money for the performance enhancing drugs he received from him. Braun was not the only name on the list that was reported by yahoo.com. CY Young contender, Gio Gonzalez was mentioned along with Alex Rodriguez, Francisco Cervelli and Melky Cabrera.

I am tired of players saying that they haven’t and will never take steroids.  Rafael Palmiero lied to all of our faces.  Barry Bonds claims he did not know a steroidal cream he was taking had steroids in it. Sammy Sosa apparently didn’t even know English when he was asked about his use of steroids.  It kills me a little inside knowing that one of the biggest juicers and ignorant players of all time, Jose Conseco, is the only player to “completely” tell the truth about PED’s in baseball.

With that being said, the last few years steroids and other performance enhancing drugs have stolen the headlines from every other aspect of the game.  As fans, what can we conclude from all this?

Unlike many other fans of the sport I am no longer surprised to see some of the best players in the world being caught taking PEDs or having their names associated with taking these substances.  Not one circumstance can surprise me anymore.

There is no way we can sit and judge these players.  Cheating has been going on in baseball as long I can remember: corked bats, too much tar on the bat, tar on the inside of the pitchers hats, trapping baseballs in the outfield to make it appear as if they have been caught, base runners stealing signs from the catcher and worst of all, players lying about their age.

Performance enhancing drugs is just another way of cheating that we seem to frown upon more than anything.  As fans we need to accept the fact that players take these substances and that it is not just one player.  It is one of those things that we need to talk about as fans in the media, it is a part of sports.

When we see a scrawny, scrappy player put on twenty pounds of muscle or a guy hitting ten homeruns in a month when he had a total of ten the year before, we all question inside whether he is cheating. But no one really brings it up or discusses whether that player is cheating.

Blood testing is finally being put into effect for baseball this season.  If players want to claim they do not take these drugs and do not cheat the game then they should prove it.  Stop sitting behind the players union and take the drug tests that they take in the Olympics.  It is the only way to take your name away from the list that categorizes questionable PED users.

People who love the game say they would never take PED’s and cheat the game they love regardless if it is the difference between playing in A ball your entire career, or making it to the Big Leagues and making millions.  The thing is, no one knows what they would do until they are put in that situation.

Until baseball takes the next step and drug tests the players like they do in the Olympics, I will sit and watch history being made every day.  We shouldn’t judge the players, we should take PED’s for what they are and not be surprised about who fails these drugs tests.  For all we know Derek Jeter and Mike Trout could have taken them. Accept the fact that your favorite player could have taken them and enjoy the game you love and always remember the period of sports that we are in.

editorialthumb2

Regents’ Subpar Strategy Will Ostracize Connecticut Residents

The Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education was scheduled to vote yesterday on whether or not to approve a 5.1 percent tuition increase for in-state students and a decrease for out-of-state students by 2.6 percent. When this publication went out for print (Monday), our editorial staff was not aware if this proposal was approved or not. Nonetheless, the fact that this was considered did not sit well with our staff.

The idea that in-state residents, who pay taxes to the state, will have to pay more to attend a state school is disappointing. Most students in high school in Connecticut have been in this state for most of their lives. Their parents have paid taxes year in and year out. A chunk of every paycheck that they earned was taken away before they ever got their hands on it. Part of that money went towards education and now it’s not going to benefit them at all.

Regardless of what happened at the Regents’ meeting Tuesday, state school tuition will still cost less for in-state residents, as it should, but decreasing the cost for those who don’t contribute to the state while increasing the price for those that do cannot be expected to be taken well.

Under this proposal, loyalty is the last thing that comes to mind. If the state is dealing with declining enrollment then the last thing it should do is ask its residents to pay more for a college education. In-state students are the CSU system’s bread and butter. Most people that attend state schools do so with the inkling that it costs less to do so.

Not only is the tuition cheaper than private schools, but a lot of students commute from home to save on room-and-board costs. The amount of money that students can save is the main reason why they stay in state. To be quite frank, there’s not much that draws students from other states into the CSU system.

But that is exactly what the board voted on; a second-rate strategy that attempts to lure students from out-of-state into Connecticut. The message that is being sent to prospective Connecticut college students doesn’t exhibit any allegiance whatsoever.

People should feel like their state is behind them, but this proposal throws Connecticut residents to the side for the potential market that is out-of-state students. It’s just like when a company offers new customers a slew of benefits while ignoring the faithful ones that have been with it through thick and thin.

If this proposal was approved Tuesday, as many expect it to be, it will do nothing more to the declining enrollment issue that the state faces than to blindly throw a lousy solution at one of the many problems that Connecticut must deal with in the future.

Screen shot 2012-10-18 at 12.12.47 PM

Government Crosses The Line

By Justin Muszynski

The obesity rate in America has become a much debated topic that has caught some additional steam the last few years as the government continues to put forth efforts that would relieve the situation.

While it is certainly the responsible thing to do to come up with some kind of a solution to this issue, one that has caught the public’s eye, for good reason, has crossed the line that borders on the edge of what our Government should and should not be allowed to restrict.

On Friday, businesses and soda companies sued the City of New York to prevent a law that would prohibit the sale of large-sized sugar-based drinks. It’s good that the Government is aware that there is an issue and is attempting to address it, but it’s really not its place to tell people that they cannot drink a significant amount of soda.

How can the same Government that allows cigarettes to be legally purchased, turn around and limit how much soda an individual can purchase?

The Center for Disease and Prevention estimates that 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking-related deaths. And still one can buy as many cartons of cigarettes that they please without any problem. Where is the logic here?

There are plenty of things that cause obesity, yet in an outlandish move the city has decided to cut the public’s soda consumption off at 16 ounces. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has told the opponents of this law that people still reserve the right to buy a second soda. By this logic though, why limit the number of ounces that one can purchase in the first place?

The people of New York should be out protesting this law that takes away their power of choice. Is it a good idea for our society to cut down its soda consumption? Yes. But it’s oxymoronic to call yourself the land of the free when you can’t even buy a 20 ounce soda with your meal.

Freedom in this country should extend beyond such trivial tasks as purchasing soda. Making it illegal to acquire highly addictive narcotics makes sense, but something that’s high in sugar is just ludicrous.

There is no scientific evidence that proves that soda is the leading cause of obesity. There are plenty of other things that can be linked to the increase in overweight Americans. To name a few, fast-food, lack of exercise and medications. But I highly doubt the Government will come down on fast-food restaurants for serving dishes as bad for your health as deep-fried chicken.

The real issue here is not whether or not it’s a good idea to drink fewer fluids that are high in sugar. It’s the fact that the Government thinks it should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can choose for themselves. Once you give the Government more power over your life, you head down a slippery slope.

If this law stands, it will lead us one step closer to a country that gets less free with time. What makes our country so special is the fact that people can do things that are bad for them without legal consequences. Educating the American public about the obesity rate and teaching it ways to cut it down is sensible. But telling it that it can no longer buy a soda over 16 ounces because it’s not good for you is outrageous.

Editorial: Cain Should Have Known This Was Coming

The news from Herman Cain’s camp this past weekend shouldn’t have surprised anyone, at least not someone who has seen the way the media treats political figures.

Today’s news coverage, which is driven by ratings, has become a key component to a heavily-scrutinized industry. Cain and the supporters around him have found out how berating those organizations can be.

The ‘24-hour news cycle’ can put the spotlight on an issue for a once-unimaginable amount of time. Cain found that out the hard way. It was a lesson he should have known he was going to get.

The fact that John Edwards couldn’t get a haircut in 2007 without the public knowing should have been an obvious indicator of what he was getting himself into, but he didn’t hesitate.

At his peak, Cain was a major contender in the race to represent the Republican Party in next year’s Presidential election. Now he is, more than likely, backing out after allowing the accusations against him to pile high for all to see.

It’s nearly impossible for a publication with our limited size, and therefore  limited access to national sources, to gain any information that hasn’t already been made mainstream. However, if the sexual misconduct claims against him are true, then no one should question whether or not he should have ran. He shouldn’t have.

Cain claims that he is only “suspending” his bid for the nomination, but he should now know that he cannot resurrect this failed attempt. He would be foolish to even try.

There are two things that the media does especially well; one is that it informs the people of scandals involving anyone in the public spotlight. That ranges from political figures to reality television stars. The other strength is its ability to get that message into our homes with overwhelming force.

Cain should be seen by others contemplating their candidacy as the poster boy for what they can expect to face. They should have been paying attention to the missteps he’s made this year. The first of which, in hindsight, may have been his decision to run at all.

He must have known that something like this would happen. It’s the media’s self-imposed job, and some would argue duty, to find dirt on these candidates. They once again have shown that their consistency is unmatched.

It’s possible he thought he was an untouchable asset. He could have believed that the Republican Party would protect him from any onslaught against his moral and criminal record.

This wasn’t the best time for him to underestimate news media’s collective power.

His image will be forever tarnished. A formal resignation is nothing but an admittance of guilt in the public’s mind and the networks will help to reiterate that.

While it’s easy to point out the holes in our coverage of foreign affairs, the media has left no doubts that they are well-versed in domestic muckraking.

The question isn’t whether or not he should have run, but why did he think he could hide any information from the trained journalists who would be methodically probing into his past?

We can’t afford to have a person with that level of naiveté running our country.

For any prospective candidate with a messy past, let Herman Cain be a lesson that you cannot outrun any actions. You’re better off keeping your less-examined seat in Congress than destroying your image altogether.

Our Amateur Government Strikes Again

By Jonathan Stankiewicz

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction was put in charge to reach an agreement on how to reduce future deficits. Last Monday the 12 lawmakers, comprised of six Democrats and six Republicans – three members of each party divided between the House and Senate, admitted defeat. Let the blame game begin.

Congress once again has proven that they do not have the ability to take on the tough decisions that face the United States.

“After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline,” said the Co-chairs, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), in a statement last Monday.

The group was charged with issuing a formal recommendation on how to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. Shouldn’t this have been done the right way? Our country was founded on unity and since President Barack Obama was elected we, the people, have seen none. It has been like this for too long. Lately, it seems that our legislative body’s relationship with the president is like an old married couple. Obama being the nagging wife trying to get things done and Congress is the husband pretending to listen.

Consider it like this. Every family needs to pay their mortgage each and every month. That family can lose their home for missing deadlines and payments. It’s something that they have to do. This committee had a specific job that they failed to do. This wasn’t as if they were debating to make their beds or not, this was a pressing issue that they couldn’t agree on. They had a way out if they couldn’t come to a consensus. They shouldn’t have had one. Families don’t have ways to get out of paying their mortgage, do they? The group had to work together and they chose not to.

The underlying factor here is that Republicans and Democrats just don’t get along. There are exceptions, I’m sure, but this failure and the others before it are not minority examples. What both sides wanted was so different that this whole committee was doomed from the beginning.

Both parties are blaming each other, not that this is anything new to the American people. This disappointment will only add to the criticism from everyone that politicians today are too divided to accomplish the most important of duties. Our country has a trillion-dollar budget deficit. A trillion-dollar budget deficit.

The committee’s task of $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction wasn’t an easy one. That we can all agree with. Investors are more worried about the crisis in Europe than what the committee was doing or not doing. But now that they have failed, we are set up for another year of great uncertainty on taxes and spending.

President Obama has already warned congressional Republicans that he will veto any effort to try to circumvent the automatic spending cuts that would kick in if the committee failed. He is not happy and the American people shouldn’t be happy either. This is just unacceptable.

Democrats want to raise taxes since they believe it will increase revenue, while Republicans want to increase revenue by cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy. These views are fundamentally different. Democrats think that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor has gotten to an extreme. Republicans want to get rid of wasteful social programs that benefit the poor and the middle class. Why did we think that this would work? We can blame both parties and we can blame everyone on that committee, but what good would that do?

I don’t want to say that the task in front of them was easy. We all know it was impossible. This failure is just another example of how divided we are.
Obama, now with the upper hand, can now ask for a more specific program than what he has now. It would help Congress and the American people to make clear how he would combine stimulus over the next few years while putting the budget on a stable course. He could do this, but probably won’t.

We must also be mindful that he is now branding himself for election season. With the Republican candidates looking less competent after each debate, he may just sit back and allow the contrasts between them and him to continue. Hopefully we will not be subject to an extended period of apathy and dormancy from the Oval Office.

The citizens of this country are begging for our elected officials to fix the strained relationships before they completely deteriorate and we’re left with a broken system. It’s time to listen to our pleas.