A Little Opinionated

I'm just going to go on a political splurge here.. so bear with me. I've been writing these weekly essays for my American Heritage class, and I'd like to share some of my thoughts:

I recently read that former governor Mitt Romney regarded the US [social] system as the best in the world. In particular, the United States’ social mobility is largely proclaimed to be above other comparative nations. Not only does the country boast of its plentiful opportunities, but the people of America largely believe that they are in a higher standard of living than all surrounding countries. There are surveys all over the internet that show that Americans believe they enjoy much higher levels of social mobility than they actually do. To me, this suggests "something more like a religious belief in mobility than a willingness to look at the facts - a belief that permeates all demographic groups in the United States and crosses the political and ideological spectrum." In other words, this notion that social mobility in the United States is- more or less- a city upon a hill, is deeply flawed. Where the U.S. has taken a fall, other countries have risen to catch the opportunity. Where the unemployment rates of the United States are rising, they are decreasing in Canada and much of Western Europe. Poverty-stricken citizens in America have a smaller chance of making it to middle class than comparative countries, and the homeless and unemployed find it harder to make a living. The United States could, with effort, once again become that city upon a hill in social mobility. However, to accomplish this, both the citizens and the government need to start heeding facts rather than ideology. On a different note, I read that President Obama recently delayed the start date of the Employer mandate (requiring all businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide healthcare benefits for their employees, else fined $2,000 dollars per employee) from January 1, 2014 until January 1, 2015. Aside from the many disputations over his motives, and whom it may be affecting, this act of the President violates the Rule of Law in lacking generality, but more importantly in lacking consent. Unless I am mistaken, which I’m pretty sure I’m not… every legal process must be by consent of the people and their representatives. The President does not have the power to change the law in the first place, so why he has both acted out of office and without consent of the governed (and why he is allowed to do so is beyond me,) is impairing the rights of US citizens, whether they voted for him or not. Congress themselves had no say in the delay, further supporting my conclusion that the President of the United States is, as I said before, ruling without the consent of the governed. It is imperative that any ruler, especially the President of the free nation, is leading by consent, for otherwise the people are not free from government. Isn't that why people immigrated here in the first place, to get away from an oppressive government? The idea of consent is not only to satisfy the people of America, but to protect the people; their rights, benefits, and overall prosperity should not be impaled. I have become aware that it is not only the right of the citizens to remove someone who violates the rule of law from office, it is their duty. So the question I have now, is why we are standing by as this government spirals out of control with leaders who are going beyond their mandates? I know I’m a political newbie, but I think I’m one of the only ones at the moment who’s got it right…. Sometimes I think education just makes me go insane.

Whew! Okay I'm done.