"A Better Way to Raise Incomes" Summary

This article starts off by talking about how politicians across the country (including the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate and possibly the Republican one) have called for raising the minimum wage.  When they say that they want to raise the minimum wage it isn't just by a little; it's all the way to $15 an hour which is over double what the minimum wage is now.

Candidates justify their proposal by saying that you can't support a family on the current minimum wage.  The thing is that they fail to acknowledge that minimum wage workers with families to support are already able to receive a financial boost under a national program called the earned-income tax credit.  If the minimum wage were to be raised to $15 an hour, prices of other things would go up.  The tax credit we have now works just fine; it helps low-skilled workers in proportion to their household need, taking pressure off the minimum wage as the only guarantor of a "living wage."

The only catch to the tax credit is that you have to be working to qualify for it.  Candidates should be working on improving the tax credit instead of trying to raise minimum wage and mess with the economy.

I chose this source because Peter D. Salins, the author of this article, is a professor of political science at Stony Brook University and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Citation

 Salins, Peter. "A Better Way to Raise Incomes." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 July 2016. Web. 08 Sept. 2016. 

"Views You Can Use: Death Penalty Divide" Summary

The beginning of this article, written by Rachel Brody, goes over Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders' Thursday night's MSNBC debate.  For the most part the two candidates almost agreed with every issue that was gone over except for the death penalty.  When the death penalty was brought up the candidates were split neatly.

Clinton believes that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment; whereas, Sanders does not support the death penalty.  In fact, Sanders has advocated publicly to abolish the death penalty and said, "I just don't want to see government be part of killing.  That's all."

After both sides were stated the article continues on to say that the death penalty is mostly a moral, ethical argument.  The article says that at least for today, Democrats disagree with the government executing people. In the end, the article says that there have been less and less state-sanctioned killing in the U.S. which is something to be happy about.

I chose this source because Rachel Brody is associate editor for opinion at U.S. News & World Report which I believe give her the credentials to write this article.

Citation

Brody, Rachel. "Views You Can Use: Death Penalty Divide." U.S. News. U.S. News, 5 Feb. 2016. Web. 8 Sept. 2016.

"LGBT Leaders Warn of Looming Gay Rights Backlash" Summary

Writer Philip Elliott starts off his article by talking about how the Supreme Court's ruling concerning gays and lesbians the right to wed, has been met with efforts to protest those protections.  He gives examples, from different states, of people doing different things against the laws giving gays and lesbians rights.  A speaker from the National Center for Lesbian Rights said that they were just dealing with the beginning of the backlash and that it would get worse before it would get better.  They talk about how marriage is just the first big victory and there is still much more equality to strive for.  In the very end Elliott talks about how transgender people all over the world are facing harassment, discrimination, violence and abuse and that there is more to be done.

I chose this source because Philip Elliott is a Washington Correspondent for TIME.  Before joining TIME he spent almost a decade at The Associated Press, where he covered politics, campaign finance, education and the White House.  He is a graduate of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University.

Citation

 Elliott, Philip. "LGBT Leaders Warn of Looming Gay Rights Backlash." Time. Time, 20 Nov. 2015. Web. 08 Sept. 2016. 

"Is Abortion a Human Right?" Summary

Susan Milligan begins her article talking about the usual battle of abortion and the two different sides.  She says that one side is "arguing that a woman's decision about her own body is paramount, and the other, that a developing baby's life trumps all."  She talks about laws that violate human rights saying that women should be able to have an abortion if they are victims of rape or incest, or are carrying fetuses with fatal abnormalities.

After talking about the side that thinks human rights are being violated, Milligan talks about the side that believes that the notion of human rights has been terribly twisted, ignoring the rights of the child-to-be.  This side says that it is sad that courts in the U.S. and European countries don't consider an unborn child worthy of protection under the Human Rights provisions.

Both sides have good arguments and it is hard to decide which side is right and which is wrong.  I think that it all comes down to the beliefs of the individual and the morals and ethics they have.  I personally do not agree with abortion unless it is endangering the life of the mother, or the child was conceived through rape.

I chose this source because Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer for the U.S. News and contributed to a biography of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Citation

 Milligan, Susan. "Is Abortion a Human Right?" US News. U.S.News & World Report, 2 Dec. 2015. Web. 08 Sept. 2016. 

"This is actually what America would look like without gerrymandering" Summary

Christopher Ingraham starts his article off by talking about President Obama's State of the Union speech.  He quotes Obama when he says that "we have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around."  Ingraham explains gerrymandering, even offering a video to explain it more, and talks about how it is a problem and how some states are trying to fix it.

Ingraham says that although states are trying to fix this issue, as long as humans are drawing the lines, bias and self-interest will always find a way into the process.  He says that we need to let computers do the drawing for us.  He gives a map example of the current congressional district map and a map example of what a computer-drawn map would look like.  The computer has algorithms that prioritize compactness.  This is just one idea to fix the problem of gerrymandering but there are other solutions that could be made.

I chose this source from the Washington Post because writer Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data.  He also used to work at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.

Citation

 Ingraham, Christopher. "This Is Actually What America Would Look like without Gerrymandering." Washington Post. The Washington Post, Jan. 2013. Web. 07 Sept. 2016. 

"Atheists Sue Pennsylvania House After Being Barred From Giving Opening Invocations" Summary

Author Nick Wing starts off the article by talking about how things have been in the Pennsylvania state House over the past few years.  Leaders in the Pennsylvania state House have repeatedly maintained that only religious individuals are fit to deliver the opening invocation before each session.  Apparently, a group of atheist and secular organizations filed a federal lawsuit "claiming that Republican leadership is unconstitutionally discriminating against nonbelievers who wish to offer guidance to lawmakers in accordance with their sincerely held beliefs."

This controversy started back in August 2014 when two members of local atheist groups submitted a request to deliver opening invocations but were shot down.  Later on a similar request was made and it led to an official rule change stating that guest speakers "shall be a member or a regularly established church or religious organization or shall be a member of the House of Representatives."

Wing goes over multiple other examples of ongoing quarrels between church and state.  The Pennsylvania state House quarrel continues on, but the atheists say that they just want an opportunity to present another point of view.

I chose this source because Nick Wing is the senior viral editor at The Huffington Post which I feel gives him the credibility to write this article.

Citation

 Wing, Nick. "Atheists Sue Pennsylvania House After Being Barred From Giving Opening Invocations." The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 25 Aug. 2016. Web. 6 Sept. 2016. 

"Trump's tough talk on immigration is nothing new for Arizonans" Summary

In this article author Nigel Duara starts from the perspective of Patrick Bray, Executive Vice President of the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association. He talks about how Bray has always heard politicians saying "Vote for me and I'll secure the border." but for years cattle ranchers have put their support behind these politicians only to be disappointed.  He continues to talk about Donald Trump's speech promising deportation squads and a "great wall" which Brady sees, for now, as just more talk.

Duara talks about Trump's speech and how it seemed unlikely to win many new supporters in Arizona because the people there have been hearing about immigration for so long.  The residents of states like Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas are used to immigrants and are unlikely to be swayed by political rhetoric.

In the end, Duara talks about the Clinton Immigration Plan to expand the Obama policies and Trumps plan to create more Border Patrol stations and hire more agents to put on the border.  Immigration is a problem but what way is best for fixing this issue?

I chose this source because Nigel Duara, who covers the border for the Los Angeles Times, was a reporter for the Associated Press in Portland, Oregon, is a veteran of the American Middle West and graduated from the Missouri School of Journalism.

Citation

 Duara, Nigel. "Trump's Tough Talk on Immigration Is Nothing New for Arizonans." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 1 Sept. 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016. 

"Donald Trump Takes Aim" Summary

This article starts out by saying that Donald Trump has made himself the most pro-gun-rights nominee in modern G.O.P. (Grand Old Party) history.  He has practically assured the votes of the Second Amendment people.

The author of this article, Daniel Hayes, talks a little bit about his own story and how he grew up in rural Kentucky.  Hayes quotes Barack Obama when he says "Rural people will 'cling' to guns.  Not because they are sad or misguided, but because it is the last right they feel they still have:  a liberty at least, in place of opportunity."  This statement, in the eyes of Hayes, is very true.  He talks about how he grew up shooting guns with his father, which really gives the reader a feel for that fond memory of spending time with his dad over the weekends.

Hayes continues on talking about rural areas and how they have changed.  The population in rural areas has decreased over the years and those decreasing numbers are mostly from the young.  He also says that there was an increase in rural suicide rates from the young people that stayed.

Throughout the whole article Hayes gives statistics and tells stories that really make guns seem important for our country.  Near the end he talks about how Trump has gained the votes of Second Amendment people because he is so pro guns.  He talks about how Trump tells the people that they should not be punished because of the criminals that do use guns for bad things.

Overall this is a very pro guns and Trump article.  I picked this source because the author, Daniel Hayes, is a writer for the online magazine Thought Catalog and the editor of the essay collection "Guns" from the New York Times which I believe to be a credible source.

Citation

 Hayes, Daniel. "Donald Trump Takes Aim." The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Aug. 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

"Breaking the Hold of Two-Party Politics" Summary

In this article from the U.S. News & World Report Brooke Berger, a staff writer, interviews Professor Charles Wheelan concerning his book The Centrist Manifesto. Wheelan talks about the failure of two-party politics and has come up with a solution: a new party.

Berger starts out with asking Wheelan how the current system is failing.  Wheelan says that our two-party system gives too much power to the extremists in each party and that in a lot of states independent voters are unrepresented in choosing the top two candidates that end up on the election ballot.  He then says that on the House side, they're gerrymandering electoral districts.  This means that they are dividing states or counties into election districts to give one political party a majority in many districts and the other party fewer districts so that they can control the voting strength.  He says that because of this gerrymandering, the Congress is always protecting their more conservative or liberal side.

Next, Berger asks what the Centrist Party's goals are.  Wheelan argued that the Centrist party would stand for principles that take the best of each party; or in other words, keep what we like about Republicans and Democrats and cut of the tails.  After this Berger continues to ask what the Centrist's position would be on gun control which you are welcome to look at but I would like to keep the attention on the two-party system.

The interview continues with talking about the possibility of a Centrist candidate winning an election and how that would happen.  Wheelan believes that the Electoral College makes it nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to win the presidency but also believes that it would be possible to win a spot in the Senate.  He also thinks that Centrist candidates, if they made it in the Senate, would be in a very powerful position.

In conclusion, Wheelan talks about how many people that think the system is broken but instead of talking about how unhappy they are about our current system they need to actually act on it.  It is all about doing things in a different way.

I chose this source because I feel that Charles Wheelan is qualified enough to know what he is talking about in politics when it comes to our two-party system in the government.  Wheelan is a professor of public policy at Dartmouth College and studied public policy for a long time.  He spent some time as a speechwriter for a Republican governor and covered politics for The Economist.  He also ran as a Democrat in Chicago, where he says he was the most conservative candidate in a Democratic field.  He has many experiences that qualified him to write his book.

Citation

 Berger, Brooke. "Breaking the Hold of Two-Party Politics." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 2 May 2013. Web. 01 Sept. 2016.

"Next Hot Debate Topic: Obamacare" Summary

In this short video from The Wall Street Journal Gerald F. Seib, WSJ Washington Bureau Chief, points out the stances of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton when it comes to Obamacare.

Apparently there was a big shock to the Obamacare system this past week because a company called Aetna decided to pull out of a lot of the exchanges that have been set up across the country to allow policies under Obamacare.  When Aetna pulled out of these exchanges it raised a lot of questions about if Obamacare is actually going to work in the years to come.

Hillary Clinton has talked about different things that she would do to reinforce Obamacare along with allow people over fifty five to buy medicare policies and also create a different public option to purchase health insurance.

Donald Trump said that he would repeal Obamacare right away and expand the use of health savings accounts, allow private insurance policies to be sold across state lines and make costs of premiums more tax deductible.

After stating the stances of Clinton and Trump, Seib goes on to say that both sides aren't really getting any attention but that he thinks as the campaign continues on healthcare will become more of a presidential debate topic.

I chose this source because I found a table that included research of the trust levels of news sources by ideological groups from Business Insider and The Wall Street Journal is one of the more trusted than distrusted news sources by all groups tested.  This table can be found at businessinsider.com.

Citation

 Seib, Gerald F. "Next Hot Debate Topic: Obamacare." Next Hot Debate Topic: Obamacare. WSJ, 30 Aug. 2016. Web. 30 Aug. 2016.