Drug-related border crime on the U.S. Mexico border is not showing any signs of slowing up.  More than 3,400 people have been killed this year due to increasing corruption and power of drug cartels in Mexico.  According to El Universal, a national Mexican newspaper, a drug war related death occurs every 48 minutes in Mexico.  The Associated press estimates at least 23,000 people have been murdered in Mexico since Mexican President Felipe Calderón declared war on all drug cartels in 2006. Presdient Calderón has requested help from the United States military to aid him in his efforts to stop drug trafficking between Mexico and the U.S.  Calderón claims that the U.S. needs to share responsibility because of America’s mass consumption of drugs that feed the problem by driving more money and inevitably more power to the drug cartels.  In a recent visit to the nation in March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged the need to accept responsibility and to provide support to the Mexican government.  “We know that the demand for drugs drives much of this illicit trade, and that guns purchased in the U.S. are used to facilitate violence here in Mexico. The United States must, and is, doing its part,” Clinton said.  A few solutions have been presented to the situation, however all solutions are controversial matters among analysts and experts and it seems little progress has been made to come to a reasonable consensus. U.S. military aid is a subject that has received some skepticism from experts, claiming that it could bring back bad memories for the Mexican people and that the troops would receive little support from the public. Legalization of drugs is a solution that has been considered by the Mexican government, however it seems unlikely the idea will receive any support from the American government.  In an interview with CNN, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked if Legalization was a realistic option.  She responded with a blunt “No, it is not.”  However controversial the solutions may be, it is apparent that something must be done to decrease the power and funding of these drug cartels that induce corruption and murder thousands of civilians.

President Barrack Obama signed a bill today that some consider to be one of the most influential pieces of legislation in our nation’s history. The comprehensive Health Care Reform Bill was passed by the House late Sunday night in a 219 to 216 vote.  The Senate’s version of the bill was passed by the House without any changes made. However, in order to please House Democrats, an additional measure to the bill was passed along with it the same night, known as reconciliation.  This reconciliation clause will now go to the Senate for further debate, where Democratic Leaders are confident that they have enough votes to pass it as well.  The bill is estimated to cost $940 billion over the next decade.  Some of the bills components include: prohibiting denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, enable children to stay on their guardians health care plans until age 26, an increase in a medical payroll tax for individuals with an annual income of 200,000 and joint filers with an annual income 250,000 and over.  The bill will also require most employers to provide coverage to their employees or face penalties, as well as require most individuals to obtain coverage or face penalties.  The bill will add 16 million people to Medicaid rolls.  Under this bill each state would set up some type of insurance market or exchange, where individuals whose policies do not meet government standards can shop for policies that are deemed adequate by the government.  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill will expand coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans.  However, the estimate also reveals that 23 million will still be uninsured by the year 2019.  It will be interesting to see how the States deal with this expansion of Federal Power.  There are already rumors of the state of Florida challenging the law in the court system.  One a lighter note, check out the video above of the President signing the bill and pay close attention to the remark made by Vice President Joe Biden to President Obama at the end of his introduction.  See if you can make out exactly what he says.

Texas primaries are over and Perry and White won huge.  Rick Perry avoided a chance for a run-off in the three man race with 51% of Republicans voting for him.  Kay Bailey Hutchinson rounded up 30% of Republican’s votes and Debra Medina managed just 18%.  Political scientists say Rick Perry’s “Anti-Washington” message was key to his success.  While in office, Rick Perry turned down many opportunities to receive federal funding for various projects, displaying his stern conservative beliefs.  He made it clear that he wanted as little federal government interference as possible in the state of Texas.  Rick Perry carried this message over to his campaign and the result was yet again, another victory.   As for Kay Bailey and her disappointing turnout, she just could not make a strong case against the sure-shot Republican incumbent.  It is not easy to beat out a Republican incumbent that has done nothing to upset his party.  Another factor that could have accredited to her loss is her rusty campaigning skills.  Hutchinson’s establishment as a savvy politician, as well as her tactic to challenge Perry’s commitment to true conservative ideals, made her a worthy opponent.  However, she has not been involved in a tough campaign in a long time and that undoubtedly contributed to her defeat.  Now Texans will have to wait until November to vote for their next Governor in an interesting race between veteran Rick Perry and former mayor of Houston, Bill White, who swept the Democratic primary with a 77% vote.

In a combined effort by Attonery General Greg Abbott and Governor Rick Perry, the Texas state government has filed a law suit against the Environmental Protection Agency.  The intent of the law suit is to overturn a U.S. Supreme court ruling in 2007 giving the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Greg Abbot’s main point of argument is that the data used by the EPA is inaccurate.  Abbot gave examples of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change and the Climate Research Unit at Great Britian’s East Anglia University, (the two research groups cited the most by the EPA in the 2007 ruling), manipulating data and excluding critical information in their studies. Perry claims that Texas has already significantly reduced amounts of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emitted without government fines and mandates.  However, current data supports that Texas is responsible for up to 35 percent of the Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.  This lawsuit is one of many efforts by Rick Perry to limit federal government interference in Texas.

Senator Evan Bayh announced Monday he will retire from Congress and not seek re-election.  Evan Bayh explained that he was exhausted with the partisanship nature of Capitol Hill and will be looking for a job in the private sector.  This resignation has been yet another surprise to the Democratic Party, as they are still recovering from the loss of legislators Patrick Kennedy, Chriss Dodd and Byron Dorgan.  However, the Democrats are not alone.  Recently representatives from the Republican Party, like Lincoln Diaz-Balart, as well as a few House members from Indiana, Arkansas, and Arizona have also announced retirement. The question is: regardless of party affiliation, does a politician have a duty to their constituents and their country?  As a young man aspiring to become a political leader, it makes me wonder; is Capitol Hill partisan to the extent that it may be detrimental to Democracy? And if so, should the brightest minds of my generation aspire to become politicians?

In the race for Texas Governor Debra Medina, who was making some big steps towards becoming a worthy opponent for incumbent Rick Perry and current U.S. senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, has just taken two steps backwards. In a nationally broadcasted radio show with conservative host Glenn Beck she was caught off guard with one of Beck’s many conspiracy theory questions. Beck asked Medina if she believed the Bush administration was involved and had prior knowledge of the 9/11 terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center. Medina responded with a statement declaring that she thought some good questions have been raised concerning the issue and she has yet to take a side. Medina later retracted her comments on Glenn Beck’s show with a statement on her web site. However it is hard to take back such bold indecisiveness. This slip up has provided her opponents with an easy outlet for criticism and may have just cost her the Republican primary.

Congressional Republicans have proposed a hypothetical version of the health care bill if they had the power to decide the legislative result. It includes tax incentives to states that achieve low premium amounts, allowing insurance companies to offer policies to consumers across state lines, providing federal money as a reward to states who expand coverage to high-risk personnel and to individuals who may have been previously denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, refraining from implementing premium caps  and ultimately more state control and less federal expansion. It seems that legislators are sticking to their partisan views and some have demanded President Obama write an entirely new bill from scratch.  Regardless of their readiness to negotiate they will have to make some progress soon. On February 25^th  Republican and Democratic legislators will present their health care policy ideas in a televised debate.  

An interesting debate took place Monday night between former Houston Mayor Bill White and Farouk Shami.  Both are Democratic candidates for governor and both see eye to eye on many issues including; abortion rights, solutions to the current economic situation, and a strong opposition to voter identification law.  However, the center of the debate was differences in opinion on the death penalty, taxes on gasoline, the recent deregulation of the electricity in Texas, and alternate energy methods.  Farouk Shami, although having no political background, topped the night off, addressing the issues with confidence and providing bold yet simply put solutions.  Shami claimed if elected governor, he would create 100,000 new jobs as a result of construction of solar panel factories that would provide jobs to the unemployed.  A bold claim backed by a less bold promise of paying the state 10 million dollars of his personal money if he could not achieve his job creation goal.  Although this may seem like a hefty sum of money to one individual, in reality, if he failed to achieve his goal, this money would only amount to 100 dollars a person for every job he promised.