The 2nd of MANY editorials

For this weeks editorial, I chose something a little different; a little, oh, I don't know, nutty. The article was titled More Than Peanuts. That's right, we're talking actual nuts (good play on words, right? haha) The main topic was about regulation in the food industry. The writer attacked Stewart Parnell, the president of the Peanut Corporation of America, for caring more about making “$$$$$” than the health of the consumer. His corporation is being blamed for the recent salmonella outbreak that “has been linked to nine deaths and 637 illnesses”. The author of the editorial claims that if the government creates newer, stricter regulations, than it would be less likely for another episode like this one to occur.
Personally, I believe that it's a shame that some CEOs of major corporations put money over the customer. I agree with the author of the editorial that tighter regulations would force these money-hungry presidents to run a cleaner business. However, I’m unsure about how necessary these new rules are. Funding these regulations would cost America money that it just doesn’t have right now. But, I will admit that if saving a few more lives from certain peanut death means spending an extra few dollars in taxes, I for one will be the first to give up a dollar for the cause.

Here We Go Again...

Last week I read an editorial in the Washington Post about the bipartisanship of Congress. More specifically, the article discussed how the old style of politicking during President Bush’s term is going away slower than some people had hoped. The article focused on the newly proposed stimulus bill and the troubles it was facing in both houses. Some of the congressmen were still not going along with the ideas of the new President, and their disagreements about the bill were causing some problems.
Personally, I agree that there are still some politicians who are not completely sold on some of President Obama’s economic plans. However, I do believe that there will always be a few politicians that disagree with a proposed bill, no matter who proposes it. That is just the way our government is designed to work. The idea that not all congressmen are going to agree with a new stimulus bill is an example of the checks and balances of the American system of government. If every congressman agreed with whatever the President proposed, what would be the point of having them in the first place?