So, What Do You Propose?

     The proposal argument may be one of the last arguments that we examine in our reading, but I believe that it is one of the most important. Reading or listening to someone’s proposal to address a specific issue or problem, can give you great insight into the thinking process of the author. Often, one will demonstrate their ability (or their in-ability), to problem solve by the approach they take at an issue.

     I agree completely with the conclusion that is drawn in our text “the difficulty of proving that something needs fixing is compounded by the fact that frequently the status quo appears to be working” (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 312). We are all familiar with the term “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 312). This is a major obstacle for fiscal conservatives, and financial reformers in the federal government today, as well as in the past. There are a number of programs that need to be reformed, as to be viable in the future, but there is a lack of proposals to address the issues due to the in-ability to educate the general public (i.e. potential voters), on the foreseeable problems. For instance, take the monetizing of our National debt. There are no viable proposals in place to address this issue because the average citizen has not been made aware of the consequences of this process. The author of a proposal must first call the reader’s attention to the problem (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 314) and persuade their audience that there is reason for concern, before they can successfully address the issue with a proposal.

     I am personally surprised at the lack of specifics that are found in most proposals (speaking in terms of National policy). The actual step-by-step methods of implementing a proposal are instrumental in winning the support of your audience (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 315). A policy proposal without the specifics is merely political gesture to potential voters. For example, on April 13, 2011 at George Washington University, President Barrack Obama gave a big speech on reducing the federal budget deficit. He attacked Senator Paul Ryan’s proposal (which is in large part overly aggressive, and appears to have a partisan foundation), to reduce the deficit. But, the President did not give any specifics in how his proposal would go about dealing with our Nation’s mounting debt. Why not? It is not like we do not have the time for the details. In fact, roughly 10% of us have all the time in the world, because we do not have a job.

     It is clear to me after covering the material on proposal arguments, that all facets of your argument have equal and significant importance.  

Works Cited

Ramage, John, John Bean and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Reading. New York: Longman, 2010.

Ethics in Legislature

      On March 23, 2010 President Barrack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Health Care Reform (HCR). The signing of this legislation into law has been at the forefront of many vigorous debates on whether the process that was used to pass the bill or even the bill itself is ethical.

     The United States has been able to boast about the quality of our health care for many decades now. People come from all over the world to be treated in the United States by some of the finest physicians, surgeons and specialist on the planet. The issue many Americans have with the current health care system is the enormous cost that is associated with needed services. Many Americans suffer financially for years due to the high cost of care. During the 2008 Presidential election season, leading democratic candidates pledged repeatedly to their constituents and potential voters that if elected, they would certainly reform the health care system and make it accessible and affordable for all. Republican candidates acknowledged the need for reform as well, but had a much different approach. Fearing anything that remotely resembled socialized health care, republicans touted items such as Tort reform, as well as lifting the commerce restriction that prevented insurance companies from competing across state lines. But, most of the republican ideas for fiscal reform fell on deaf ears, as President George W. Bush had recently passed a prescription drug bill that was unpaid for, and responsible for adding tremendously to the National deficit.

     Immediately after President Barrack Obama was elected he set out to form legislature that would fulfill a promise that he made to constituents on the campaign trail and reform the Nation’s health care system. At the forefront this looked as if it was going to be a relatively easy task, as the President enjoyed the advantage of having a majority in the House of Representatives and a super-majority in the Senate. But, soon many ethical issues arose, such as federal funding for abortion and the individual mandate that required all citizens to purchase health care or pay an excise tax, as a result of their unwillingness to comply with the mandate.

     The federal funding for abortion issue was the center of many debates between republicans and democrats, as well as some pro-life democrats. The proposed reform bill presented by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the President did not restrict the use of funds for abortion. This became an obstacle for the Speaker and the President as many pro-life Americans believe the act of abortion is unethical. Many Christians point to the Holy Bible and the scriptures recorded in the book of Exodus. In Exodus 21:22, 23 Moses wrote in 1512 b.c.e. that: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life” (Moses). This Bible text supports the idea presented by many Christians that God views the unborn child as a life, thus making the willing termination of such a life a sin, an unethical act that is punishable by death. Although, this belief is not shared by all Americans, the lack of restriction pertaining to the use of individual tax dollars to fund community health centers where “many of these community health centers will be run by Planned Parenthood and other groups that see abortion as an essential service” (Mosher), was met with harsh opposition by pro-lifers. Many of the President’s supporters argued that no funds went directly to pay for abortion procedures. But, organizations such as Planned Parenthood do not separate funds for individual programs, therefore individual tax revenues would go to substantiating the financial viability of such entities that perform abortion.

     On March 21, 2010 pro-life democrat Bart Stupak and 10 other House members (Stupak 11) held up the vote on HCR by demanding that an amendment be added to the bill that specifically restricted the use of tax dollars to fund abortion. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to add such an amendment knowing the only way to pass HCR was to do so under the provision of reconciliation, which does not allow the bill to be modified or amended in any way. If such an amendment would have been granted, the bill would have to go back to the Senate for an additional vote. Being that Scott Brown a Senator from the state of Massachusetts had just won a landmark election and occupied the Senate seat that was held by the Kennedy family for over 30 years, democrats had lost their super-majority, and a filibuster by Senate republicans was almost a certainty. This would have left the bill in eternal debate, ultimately defeating the legislature. In the 11^th hour of the House session Speaker Nancy Pelosi conferred with President Obama, convincing him to sign an executive order which restricted the use of federal funding for abortion. Bart Stupak and the other 10 House members needed the provision of an executive order, to appease their constituents that were vigorously against such funding. A day after Representative Bart Stupak, and the other 10 House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the “Stupak 11” released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which totaled more than $4.7 billion, an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker (Riggs). Millions of dollars in tax payer money can be quite of an effective tool when it comes to changing ones ethical position.

     One has to question how ethical it was to sell the idea to the concerned public that the executive order signed by President Obama had any effect at all on the legislature. The constitution does not explicitly grant the President the power to govern by decree or to promulgate executive orders that are like legislation (Rotunda and Nowack). In other words, President Obama executive order is not worth the paper it is written on. It has absolutely no effect at all on the law that was passed. It was done simply as a formality to help Representative Stupak and the others justify their change of position on the bill. President Obama, a graduate from Harvard University, would almost certainly of known about the lack of power an executive order has over a law passed by Congress.

     Another ethical issue that is currently being challenged by several of the state’s Attorney General’s, is the individual mandate where all citizens are required to purchase health insurance, or face a series of fines that are enforced by the Internal Revenue Service. The Attorney General’s that oppose this legislation have taken the position that it is unconstitutional to force Americans to purchase anything from a private entity or government agency. Many who support the HCR bill argue that all drivers are required to purchase automotive insurance, or be subjected to fines, and that the requirement to purchase health insurance is no different. Except for one minor detail, those in favor of the bill would be correct. Everyone has the option not to drive. So the comparison of the two is not a legitimate argument.

     As the court case that was filed in opposition to the HCR bill makes its way through the Federal Court system, President Obama has changed his position on one of his most popular campaign promises from the 2008 Presidential Campaign. President Obama promised “no new taxes,” for families making less than $250,000 per year. The individual mandate in the HCR bill requires individuals to purchase health insurance or be hit with an excise tax. That means that any family that cannot afford to purchase health insurance for all the members of the household will be required to pay an additional tax that will be enforced and monitored by the IRS.

     When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed Obama to admit that the individual mandate was a tax increase, Obama said, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

     That was six months before the passage of the health care reform bill. Less than two months after the bill became law, the Obama administration filed a motion in federal court in defense of the law, arguing that the individual mandate is a tax (DeMersseman).

     I believe the HCR bill was fraught with several unethical policies and procedures other than those in which I have mentioned. The deceptive numbers given to the Congressional Budget Office in order to bring the overall cost below one trillion dollars, in which $500 billion was double counted, as recently admitted to by Kathleen Sebelius. The tremendous financial burden that is transferred to the states as their Medicare and Medicaid costs will raise uncontrollably, the ration of care that will be necessary to keep the HCR bill viable financially in the future; these are a few examples among many. But, I also strongly believe that Americans cannot be upset with their Representatives in Washington when most have such a lack of education on the process. It is up to individual Americans to understand, even if vaguely, the process in which bills become law. A more attentive public would go a long way in promoting ethics in our Nation’s Capital.

Works Cited

DeMersseman, William. Dissed Trust: America's Crisis of Truth, Faith, and Freedom. WestBow Press, 2010.

Moses. Holy Bible "English Standard Version". Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 2001.

Mosher, Steven. "Does Obamacare Fund Abortion? Let Us Count the Ways." Catholic Exchange 27 Oct. 2010: 1.

Riggs, Mike. After Voting Yes on Health Care, "Stupak 11" Request 4.7 Billion in Earmarks. 26 3 2010. 14 April 2011 <http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/26/after-voting-yes-on-health-care-stupak-11-requested-4-7-billion-in-earmarks/>.

Rotunda, Ronald and John Nowack. Treatise on Constitutional Law V. 2. Thomson/West, 2007.

Novice View of a Triangle

     The rhetorical triangle has become an essential tool for myself as I strive to present writings that are well balanced and carry a persuasive amount of authority, appeal and reasoning on a given topic or issue.

     I am non-recovering news junky, especially in regards to political issues and topics that deal with the state of our Nation’s economy. The ethos point of the triangle is always of upmost importance to me when it comes to how much attention or merit I give to a particular article or journal entry. Establishing credibility with your audience is a crucial element in creating value in your position on a topic. Many political pundits bring light to important subjects with substantial information, but dilute their message by taking such a partisan tone in their writings. The days of speakers and writers such as Paul Harvey, that gave great attention to a fair representation of the news, are for the most part a thing of the past. Because of this fact, I believe that the logos point of the rhetorical triangle has taken on additional value.

     When a speaker or writer is known publicly to have a political persuasion in their core values, it is crucial that they take the necessary steps to validate the information in which they are presenting. Although logic and reasoning rarely play a majority role in politics, presenting evidence in the form of data, statistics or quotations, are essential in delivering a clear and valid message. This is equally important in any writing, as points of view and opinions are just simply that without the logic, reasoning or evidence to back them up.

     From the pathos point, the beliefs and values of your audience are not to be ignored if you endeavor to present an argument that will be accepted or at least understood. For instance, regardless of how many facts you had, or who you were, if you gave a speech on the importance of raising taxes on the top one percent of income earners (that already account for 35 to 40 percent of the Nation’s tax revenue), to the local Tea Party, it would most likely fall on deaf ears.

     The best writers and speakers among us have mastered the art of balance between all points of the rhetorical triangle.

Most Pictures Are More Appealing, When Put in the Proper Frame

     Although reading the assigned material every week is not as enjoyable as losing myself in a great political novel or memoir of my choosing, I find it to have much more education value that I can refer to in the future. I have found that many of the reading materials that are required for the classes, in which I have enrolled, are beneficial for the proper execution of my assignments, but have no substantial value for me as I move on to other subjects and courses. I cannot say the same about the book Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, written by Ramage, Bean and Johnson.

     When I discovered my requirements for completing my degree included Composition I and Composition II, I choose to take both of these classes my first semester as to get, what I felt would be a painful process, out of the way earlier rather than later. I feared that the material was going to be fraught with the application of proper sentence structure, and Basic English rules that applied to such items as the use of nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc., an area of English that I less than enjoyed and excelled at in high school. But, I have been pleasantly surprised at how useful the reading material has been, and how often I refer to the book in which I have mentioned, as well as the Penguin Handbook written by Lester Faigley. Both books have been very useful in my learning process in regards to how I shape and frame my writings.

     The structure and framing of ones arguments in writings is of the upmost importance when it comes to supporting your position on a topic or issue. As stated in chapter three The Core of an Argument, “When you write an argument, your task is to take a position on the issue and to support it with reasons and evidence” (Ramage, Bean and Johnson). I have found that many writers articles that can be found today either ignore this fundamental process, or do not frame the information in a way that provides for a clear understanding and reasoning for the position in which they have taken. I feel that providing evidence of why a particular position has been taken is of crucial importance in regards to appealing to the expertise and character of the author. I agree that “besides being knowledgeable about your issue, you need to demonstrate fairness and courtesy to alternative views” (Ramage, Bean and Johnson). Approaching a subject from an objective point of view can go a long way in establishing credibility for the author. I also find that using analogies in ones writings can be a very useful tool in the art of persuasion. Out of respect for your readers, you should always endeavor to properly structure and frame your arguments properly.

Works Citied

Ramage, John, John Bean and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Reading. New York: Longman, 2010.

Yard Work Anyone?

     Writing is like doing yard work to me. It is not something that I get real excited about doing, and will often put it off until it is absolutely necessary. But, similar to doing yard work and landscaping I find the process to be quite calming and enjoyable, once I motivate and engage myself in the process. I will take my time to consider different ways in which I can manipulate the landscape to achieve the most desirable appearance. I take the same approach with writing. I spent quite a bit of time brainstorming and writing down points or topics in which I want to cover. I try to stick to items or topics that I am somewhat familiar with, even though I find researching and learning about unfamiliar subjects very intriguing. I would have to say that for the most part, I try to stay in my comfort zone. I do my very best to approach the subjects in which I am writing about from a neutral point of view, regardless of how strong of an opinion I may have on the issue. Most of the writings that I have done for my classes have been on political issues, so I feel that it is of the upmost importance that I do not come across to the potential readers as a partisan. I have found that taking the time to research topics in which I already have an opinion on, can be quite educational and often times change my perspective on the issue. I probably spend more time than most in the drafting process. I am certainly not a seasoned writer, and often my first couple approaches do not reflect the outcome in which I am trying to achieve. Much like landscaping in this sense, you must endure a few vegetative fatalities before you realize that apparently your approach to trying to be creative is fraught with error. One of the pleasures that I enjoy the most about writing is being able to read over the finished product and have since of accomplishment. Just as I am aware that the trimming and grooming of one’s yard or garden will certainly reflect on the individual that performed the work, I take similar pride in the completions of my writings. That last period is like the smell of freshly cut grass.

Want To Argue?

     I found the reading of the first two chapters of Writing Arguments to be quite interesting and eye opening. Upon reading that the definition of an argument I was surprised to find out that it was “not a fight or a quarrel” (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 2). I can now see that I have been in far few arguments than I had previously thought. But, the amount of fights and quarrels are almost staggering. I would definitely have to agree with the authors of Writing Arguments, in regards to arguing, that it can be quite pleasurable (2). Especially when you are certain that the facts firmly support your side of the debate.

     I can say that the most frustrating situation for myself is trying to argue a point with someone that is willing engage in the argument with you, but have no basis of actual facts to support their side of the argument. This is the point at which the argument evolves itself into a quarrel. I am often amazed at the effort some put into trying to convince you that they are right, and you are wrong, based on an opinion that they have. Often times they cannot even explain to you why they have formed a particular opinion. I find that most people put in a situation where you are challenging them on their facts will fall back on the old faithful statement of: “That is just what I believe.” How do you argue with that? And what relevance do their beliefs have if they have no facts to back it up? I appreciated the fact that the reading brought out that besides the art of persuasion, an argument consist of individuals continually seeking the truth (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 13).

     I feel that I often emerge victorious in most arguments that I find myself a part of. But, I do not usually engage in the argument in the first place, unless I feel I have the facts to firmly support my position. Once I do engage though, it is quite enjoyable, almost sport like.

Works Cited

Ramage, John, John Bean and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Reading. New York: Longman, 2010.