Current-NO

=Current Events=

Our country's current administration, led by the brilliant mind of President George W. Bush, has not met with much success. Things got off to a rocky start, with terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Despite the fact that none of the actual terrorists involved with the terror plot were Iraqi, our President felt that Iraq somehow was an accomplice in the “attack on American soil.” And once the American people were told that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, everybody thought that the next best move would be to go to war. Somehow, Iraq managed to hide all of its WMD's before our ground troops could locate them, so naturally President Bush's approval rating dropped. And despite the fact that casualties were on the rise, our President felt that the hard part of the war was already over so he announced that our Mission was Accomplished. Because nobody that was tied with the World Trade Center attacks was caught in a short period of time, the Bush administration began receiving pressure from both parties to catch more terrorists who were involved. With America in a state of panic, everybody felt that it was only logical for our legislature to suspend a few rights here and there. What could possibly be wrong with sacrificing a few freedoms for complete security? One thing has led to another, and our country has been in a downward spiral of giving up liberty after liberty just to get that much closer to catching suspected terrorists, and that much closer to having a completely safe country.

- "The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56), known as USA PATRIOT Act or simply the Patriot Act, is an American act which President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1, and in the House by a vote of 357 to 66. Although the bill enjoyed widespread Congressional and Presidential support it is a very controversial federal legislation.

"Originally passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Act (full text) was formed in response to the terrorist attacks against the United States, and dramatically expanded the authority of American law enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. It has also been used to detect and prosecute other alleged potential crimes, such as providing false information on terrorism. Federal courts declared some sections unconstitutional because they interfere with civil liberties. It was renewed on March 2, 2006 with a vote of 89 to 11 in the Senate and on March 7 280 to 138 in the House. The renewal was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006.

"Some of the more controversial provisions of USA PATRIOT act were largely inspired by the RICO act, which restricted due process for individuals involved in organized crime, racketeering, and drug trafficking. The USA PATRIOT Act essentially extended the qualifications to those involved in terrorism." [Wikipedia([|Patriot Act])]

"H.R. 22 would change the laws that govern the operation of the United States Postal Service (USPS), particularly those regarding the cost of pensions and health care benefits of retired workers and the requirement to hold certain funds in escrow. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would result in on-budget savings of $35.7 billion and off-budget costs of $41.6 billion over the 2006-2015 period. (The net expenditures of the USPS are classified as "off-budget.") Thus, CBO estimates the net cost to the unified budget would be $5.9 billion over the 2006-2015 period. All of those effects reflect changes in direct spending. In addition, we estimate that implementing H.R. 22 would have discretionary costs of about $1.6 billion over the 2006-2015 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. (Enacting the bill would not affect federal revenues.)

"Enacting H.R. 22 would not affect how much the federal government spends on pension or health care benefits for USPS retirees. By increasing how much the Postal Service pays to finance those benefits and by eliminating the current-law escrow account requirements, however, the bill would increase future budget deficits as measured by the unified federal budget. Eliminating the escrow account requirement for the USPS would allow that agency to increase spending for capital improvements or other projects, pay down its outstanding debt, postpone or diminish future rate increases, or some combination of these options. Enacting the bill also would reduce direct spending by making the costs of the Postal Rate Commission and the USPS Office of the Inspector General subject to appropriation.

"H.R. 22 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Major provisions of H.R. 22 would: Eliminate a requirement in Public Law 108-18 (P.L. 108-18), the Postal Civil Service Retirement Funding Reform Act of 2003, that the Postal Service place savings from reduced pension contributions in escrow. Transfer from the Postal Service to the Department of the Treasury responsibility for paying pension costs associated with military service credits. Replace direct payments the Postal Service is making for retiree health care costs with payments designed to prefund some of the health care costs of current employees when they retire. Revise the procedure for raising postal rates. Strengthen the USPS Board of Governors and the Postal Rate Commission, which would be redesignated the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). Make other changes designed to increase the Postal Service's competitiveness with private industry." [Wikipedia([|Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act])]

"Legal status Telephone tapping is officially strictly controlled in many countries to safeguard an individual's privacy; this is the case in all developed democracies. However, in certain jurisdictions such as Germany, courts will accept illegally recorded phone calls without the other party's consent as evidence. In the United States, federal agencies may be authorized to engage in wiretaps by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court with secret proceedings, in certain circumstances. Many businesses and other organizations record their telephone calls so that they can prove what was said, train their staff, or monitor performance. This activity may not be considered telephone tapping in some, but not all, jurisdictions because it is done with the knowledge of at least one of the parties to the telephone conversation. It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that the conversation is being recorded. In India, telephone tapping has to be approved by a designateed authority. It is illegal otherwise." [Wikipedia([|Wiretapping of Americans])]

Home