Information On Our US Government That Everyone Should Know

      Our current voting system is set up so that American's have only one day to be able to cast their ballot in very important decisions, such as the Presidential Elections. In research conducted by the Census Bereau in 2010, 27% of people that didn't vote that year said that the main reason they didn't make it to the polls to vote, was due to lack of time available in the day. (Should elections be held on weekends, by NPR). 27% percent is a very large number when determining the historical outcome of our country, and in retrospect, also altering the outcomes of our personal lives. If we were to change the day that voting occurs to a weekend day, this could potentially increase voter turnout. However, people do still work on the weekends so there would still be a certain percentage of American's who wouldn't be able to vote. Another option would be if we were to open up the voting to be held on three days instead of one day. This would allow more time for people t

     The US government has offered many benefits to it's citizens throughout the decades. We have a great military system that protects us, freedom to choose our own sexual identities, and women's rights to choose what what she wants to do with her own body, are just three very small examples of the great benefits we receive as US citizens. As great as our system is, one major complaint that I share, along with many other parents, is the US policy on maternity leave; or should I say the lack of policy. According to Wikipedia, FMLA requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave for mothers with newborns. The policy promises to protect women from getting fired while they are recovering from such a strenuous medical situation. As thankful as I am for that, the US government can and should add a few more things into that policy.      The first thing they should change is the amount of time from 12 weeks, to a minimum of 16 weeks. According to the World Health Organization, the minimum amount

On October 6th, 2019, Michell Schnurmann wrote an  article   called "Over $20,000 for health coverage? Prices are too high even for those with company insurane". The article talks about the rising costs of healthcare in the United States. Shcnurmann explains that in surveys over the past few years, that healthcare costs have continued to rise with current costs for the average family consisting of $20,000 yearly.  I believe his intended audience is for business employers and their employees. He states that while hospitals and insurance companies continue to raise their prices for healthcare/deductibles, that the business aren't "fighting back" by saying no and walking away. This leads to employees having to pay a lot out of their paychecks each month, to provide healthcare for their families. I really agree with Schnurmanns points. I currently can't afford insurance coverage for my 2 children and myself. The amount that would be deducted from my paycheck mon

On September 23rd, 2019, Christian Smith posted an article on the Austin American Statesman.  Christian's article is called My Fight to protect DACA is a personal one . His argument was a heart tugging plea that the Supreme Court should not end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Christian told his own personal story about meeting a young boy at the age of 1 years old, who grew to become one of his best friends. His friend, Mateo, is an illegal immigrant protected under the DACA program. Both Christian and Mateo are extremely worried about the repercussions that could occur not only to their friendship, but to Mateo's life, and those of the general US population if Congress decides to end the DACA program. I'd like to take a few moments to critique Christian's stance and opinion of his article. I believe Christian's intended audience is the general US population, particularly those that are citizens and have friends or family members that a

  On September 18, 2019, USA Today published an article that touches on a very sensitive subject that has been a huge controversy in the United States for some time now. The article touches briefly on the gun control policy that Beto O'Rourke is trying to pass and his attempt at appeasing gun owners if it does go into affect.  It's specifically worth noting that Beto O'Rourke is from El Paso, Texas, where the most recent mass public US shooting occurred.  On the contradicting side of O'Rourke is the NRA (National Rifle Association). The article explains what the NRA is doing, in order to try and put a stop to the policy.   Due to the mass shootings that happen yearly throughout the United States, I think this article is one worth reading. It will educate us on one way that our politicians are trying to eliminate those mass shootings. However, it also shows people, who are against having their rights taken away (Right To Bear Arms), what they can do to help the NRA stop

Hey y'all! Good luck on your fall school semester!