It was the birth of a nation grounded in the revolutionary spirit of a people who yearned for something better. They yearned for a set of principles that they had never known before…

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These principles instilled a fire into a people that, once it started burning, could not be extinguished. The new American people wanted to be free. And so, on this day 238 years ago, they declared that they would do just that.

As we celebrate the birth of our country today it is important to look back and remember the principles that generations of Americans have fought for to keep our nation free.

We continue to focus on the lack of compromise and partisanship that has seemed to plague our government for the past several years, instead of focusing on working together in the spirit of shared American values and ideals.

Follow My Vote was founded two years ago today with the spirit of American ideals in mind, as we hope to bring the American people back into politics in order to better our system of government.

This country was founded on the principle that the people should decide how their country is governed and in today’s politics this is often forgotten. It is Follow My Vote’s mission to bring this back and hold our elected officials to the standards of the people.

As you celebrate this 4th of July, pause to remember the reason we are able to celebrate. The generations of Americans that fought for our freedom would be disappointed if they thought that we have forgotten about the ideals that made this country great.

Reflect on this quote by founding father James Madison. “Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society.”

Happy 4th of July from Follow My Vote!

The post Happy 4th of July From Follow My Vote! appeared first on Follow My Vote.

As soon as the decision that stated (5-4) that for-profit companies can reject the contraception mandate based on religious freedom grounds was released, Democratic legislators were quick to not only criticize, but go a step further. The legislators announced that if the Supreme Court would not mandate contraception coverage for women they would take steps to do so. This proposition raised by Senator Patty Murray and touted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is deeply troubling.

When framing the government of the United States the founders sought to create three separate branches that would be able to check the others’ power so no branch could obtain too much power and encroach on the liberties of the populace. However, with legislators openly coming out and saying that they will look for ways around the decision of the highest Court in the country, it raises an alarm. These legislators simply don’t believe that the Court’s decision holds power and significance in today’s society.

The Supreme Court struck down the provision of the Affordable Care Act, which itself is a law that they helped to define, based on grounds of encroachment on the religious freedom of these companies.

This decision was grounded on Constitutional principles that, should it be discarded by legislators that want to impose their will and interests on a piece of the law, will in effect show a dramatic decrease in the power of the Judicial Branch.

It is imperative that the Judicial Branch remains to check the other two branches of government to ensure the protection of our three-branch system.

Now of course, these legislators may not be acting out of blatant disregard for the Supreme Court, but it is a little unnerving that in light of an unfavorable decision that was made to follow the Constitution. They are looking for ways to still include this coverage in the Affordable Care Act one way or another.

The coming months will be a true test of the power of not only the Supreme Court, but of the President and Congress as they fight to pursue their mandates and shape arguably the most controversial law of our time.

It is important to remember this quote from Thomas Jefferson. “”The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that.”

The post Three Equal Branches? appeared first on Follow My Vote.

What is expected from the government in its everyday interactions with the American people is becoming much different than it was fifty, twenty five, or even ten years ago. Americans are facing stark choices as to what kind of government they want in Washington D.C., and moderation and compromise appears to be out the window.

We have always been somewhat of a self interested people. Some critics say, that is the byproduct of a very open society and an economy based on a capitalistic system.

However, others argue that with the increase in the role the government plays in our lives everyday, such as with, healthcare, social security, tax breaks, student loans, or welfare, corporate or otherwise, Americans are now looking at public policy that transcends the good of the country and gets back to the prior point of the individuals self interest.

Now we have a situation where a majority of Americans are voting selfishly rather than selflessly.

And naturally, I can’t blame them. But this way of thinking will have a direct impact when it comes time to vote in this November election and again in 2016. The question a large majority of people will be asking is not, “which candidate is best for the country?” But, “which candidate is going to make sure I get the most benefits, the lowest taxes, the highest welfare” … the list goes on.

Liberals want to give benefits to everyone and encourage ever expanding government and conservatives want to cut everything and advocate for smaller government. This seems to be the status quo.

The problem is, people are no longer voting for what policy is best for the country, what will get us out of debt, or help our children afford school, or help our veterans. Instead, people are voting for the candidate that promises them the most stuff, whatever that may be, and this worries me.

Lawmakers are equally at fault in this scenario as well. Compromise seems to be taboo in Washington, and gridlock is the norm. It’s time for these policymakers to come to terms with the fact that the self interest of the individual may not always be in the best interest of the country.

The fact of the matter is that moving forward we, as a nation, have to take responsibility for our future, for ourselves, our children, and our children’s children. If we go broke, or our economy becomes so weak that it cannot sustain the costs of healthcare, schools, or other infrastructure, then the America that was once a shining city on a hill will be a city without power.

Moving forward, let’s hold lawmakers accountable; but, more importantly, let’s hold each other accountable to elect leaders that do represent the greater good for this country.

Citizens need to take responsibility for the future of this country, to secure it for generations to come. That is the noblest self-interest of them all.

John F. Kennedy famously once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” This message seems to be slipping away among voters in our time; and, for the sake of America, I hope we can remember to try to live by his words a little bit more now, and in the future.

The post The Changing Face of America’s Priorities appeared first on Follow My Vote.

His first executive order demands that coal producing energy plants cut carbon emissions by 30% by the year 2030. This comes amid renewed concerns about global warming as a result of human fossil fuel consumption. However, Congress has been unable to agree on a comprehensive energy bill, which led to the President issuing an executive order to enact the legislation.

Then, the President signed an executive order that will allow college graduates to only pay 10% of their income toward college loan payments in a push to lower the financial credit burdens on graduates plagued by large debt.  Furthermore, this legislation would allow for the forgiveness of remaining student debt after twenty years in the program.

This executive order has also been met with opposition as many lawmakers argue that it does not address the root causes of higher education becoming too expensive for most students to afford.

The significance of these executive orders goes beyond their policy implications. The fact of the matter is that the President is bypassing Congress to push through legislation, both on his agenda and late in the presidency.

Our current Congress is arguably the most partisan in history.  Numerous bills are proposed by one side just to sit in the other house for months on end with no result.  Although many critics argue the constitutionality of the executive order, a divided Congress in gridlock doesn’t make passing legislation any easier.

The post Back to Back Executive Orders: Obama Tries to Push Mandate Amid Divided Congress appeared first on Follow My Vote.

Critics argue that this is rapidly taking the regular people out of politics, as multi-billionaires are able to seemingly buy candidates seats in Congress and a spot in the White House with their incredible ability to raise millions of dollars.

This trend may seem like it is coming up in the press only recently, but big money campaign financing has been around a long time. Since the dawn of the 20^th century special interest groups and billionaires have been fundraising to campaign for their favored candidates. Nixon received almost $5 million for both of his campaigns; and, John Kerry had George Soros throw $27 million his way to try and get him elected in 2004.

These are just a few examples of the amount of money being spent on candidates. In today’s volatile political climate, however numbers are reaching record heights. Environmentalist Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million to try and push climate change advocates into Congressional seats throughout the country.

In races for Congress, expenditures have reached record highs with candidates spending an average of over $1.2 million. In the Senate, these numbers are climbing as well.

The energy billionaires, the Koch brothers, have fundraised and donated tens of millions to various conservative candidates throughout the years and are on pace this year to raise record amounts  of money (over $400 million) to push a conservative majority in Congress.

The fact of the matter is that these mega donors are now spending more than the political parties themselves to get their candidates elected. The tipping point of this trend occurred in 2012 with mega donors spending almost $1 billion more than the two parties.

Their control over who makes it out of the primaries is growing stronger and this trend shows no sign of reversing anytime soon. The power of who gets elected these days is becoming less the choice of the people, but rather it is being placed more in the hands of a select few that have the money to outspend the competition.

In a definition of a republic, the supreme power is supposed to be held by all the people not a select few self-interested billionaires, which begs the question: WE at follow my vote want to know. . .

The post Buying a Seat Isn’t Anything New, It’s Just Getting More Expensive : The Big Money Story appeared first on Follow My Vote.

However, this year, amid congressional gridlock and plummeting presidential approval rates, students are expressing their discontent with the situation in Washington by protesting political figures that were scheduled to deliver commencement addresses around the country.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to speak at Rutgers but canceled due to students protesting her ties to the war in Iraq. Similarly, IMF Director Christine Largarde declined to speak at Smith College with students protesting her monetary policies a leadership of the organization.

This comes as a big change from 2008 and 2009 when students were expressing enthusiasm about the Obama era and a new hope for politics. However, recent partisanship is driving students further and further from political interests.

Recent polls are predicting that only approximately 23% of voters from 18-29 are going to vote in the 2014 mid-term elections. The midterms are always a lower turnout among younger voters, but these numbers are declining, as young voters grow more wary of happenings in Washington.

Many feel that Capitol Hill has become too partisan to fix issues plaguing the country.

On top of this notion, students are no longer as interested in hearing the words of wisdom from political figures that are paid thousands of dollars to come speak at the universities, as costs to get speakers like Michelle Obama or Condoleezza Rice are upwards of $70,000.

The issue remains; a generation of voters is quickly losing interest in Washington, which is not good for democracy on any account, as their interests will not be as proportionally represented in the crucial and potentially electorally shifting election of 2014.

The post Political Disillusionment Evident In Commencement Speech Protests appeared first on Follow My Vote.

Marco Rubio, often mentioned as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination, made news this past week when he unveiled a plan that would make drastic changes to the country’s healthcare and Social Security frameworks, making the argument that these programs are not sustainable under the country’s current spending path.

Rubio argues that, with longer life expectancies and the baby boomer generation reaching retirement age, measures must be taken to ensure the survival of America’s largest entitlement, which is Social Security.

In a speech to the National Press Club, the first term Florida senator proposed raising the retirement age, which would apply to workers who are currently under the age of 55.  This proposal was accompanied by his plan to reduce the growth rate on Social Security benefits to retirees in the higher income brackets.

Rubio (currently 42 years old) points out that under the current make-up of the Social Security system, he himself will not be able to tap into the benefits guaranteed him upon reaching Florida’s retirement age of 67, as the current program cannot be sustained for another 25 years.

Following the conservative line, he also suggested that the 12.4% payroll tax on retirees’ income be removed to encourage people who reach the qualifying age to remain in the workforce.

Rubio followed suit on his plan for entitlement reform with suggestions of reforming the Medicare system to allow Americans to have more freedom of choice than offered under Obamacare, by encouraging a premium support plan that opens up the ability for Americans to enroll in private plans or traditional Medicare.

Entitlement spending between these programs has grown to account for 49% of all federal spending.

With all this in mind, one might argue that Republicans are moving to provide appealing options on entitlement reform in recent months to provide a platform on such issues to counteract criticism that they do not have viable options to cut spending and save entitlements instead of simply opposing any Democratic legislation coming from The President of the United States.

Source: washingtonexaminer.com.

The post As 2016 Speculation Revs Up, Marco Rubio Embraces Entitlement Reform appeared first on Follow My Vote.

This trend is showing no sign of slowing as average costs went up 24% in the last five years and 8% in the last year alone. However, students seem to be willing to suffer years of crippling debt from student loans that, with interest, end up costing much more in the long run than the original price tag for a four year degree.

This is because of the fact that they recognize the importance of having a college degree, with average earnings being $23,000 higher with a degree than without.

But, recent proposed legislation out of Michigan has many hopeful that a new and more affordable means of attending college could be coming in the near future.

The state legislature proposed a “pay-it-forward” style of college tuition plan that would be interest free for students attending college.

Instead of paying loans on borrowed money back with interest over extended amounts of time, the legislature proposed that students would pay a fixed percentage of their income after college to pay back the value of the education.

In doing so, the legislature hopes to remove any financial barriers from attending college, as students would be able to attend for free during their years at school and once obtaining a job pay back their tuition as they are able to.

The state is hoping to finance a pilot program with a $2 million endowment to pay for the initial costs of having 200 students start the program with initial figures, allowing them to pay approximately 4% of their yearly income to pay back the school upon graduation.

This plan has started to gain momentum in other states as well, as 20 other states have begun considering such a plan to make it easier for students to attend college.

If this plan goes into place it could dramatically decrease the financial burdens and inability of students to go to and afford college by removing interest rates and allowing more flexibility in the way students pay for their education.

The post Michigan Could Change The Way Students Go To College appeared first on Follow My Vote.

This figure comes as a surprise to many, especially Republican critics of the policy, as figures had sign-ups at around 6 million about a month ago. This led the President to again bash Republicans by claiming that the debate to repeal the act should be over.

However, of this eight million, it is unclear the exact breakdown of how many have actually paid premiums to officially enroll in the exchange.  In addition, the law depends on a large percentage of the younger population to be enrolled in order to offset the costs of elderly people that require more service from healthcare.

The White House has the percentage of enrollees that are between ages 18-34 at around 28%, which is a promising figure but not one that is completely high enough to curb rising premium costs. However, if young people continue to sign up that should lead the costs to remain fairly stable.

The White House is remaining vague on how many people who were previously uninsured now have health insurance under the new plan, as Republicans criticize that the enrollment figures are skewed by people that are being forced to switch their plans due to the law.

Despite these facts, the proponents of the law now have a little more of a cushion in which to deflect criticism, as they can site the fact that if sign ups are exceeding expectations that must mean the law is working.

While many Democrats, including the President, like to claim the debate is over; the fact of the matter is that Obamacare’s success is still yet to be seen. When insurers are forced to announce the new rates under the law, we could see premium hikes that will devalue the President’s argument.

It will also be a telling figure when businesses are forced to switch over to plans that comply with the new healthcare standards implemented by the law.

Just last week, republican Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, proposed a new healthcare plan that would replace Obamacare and remake it with more focus on the power of private insurers.

Jindal argued that Republicans must act to propose concrete healthcare plans that are viable alternatives if anything is to be done.

One thing is for sure. The healthcare debate is far from over. Costs may go up, alternatives proposed, and citizens could gain coverage, but only time will tell.

The post Obamacare Marches On: 8 million signed up according to White House appeared first on Follow My Vote.

This proposal comes with much attention being placed on the increasing federal debt and federal spending increases that have been a staple of President Obama’s second term, as his focus continues on the funding of the Affordable Care Act and entitlements.

The focus of Mr. Ryan’s spending proposal was most likely not to actually pass, as the Republican plan doesn’t stand a chance of passing the Democratic-led Senate; but, it does send a message about his vision for spending and the federal debt in the upcoming years.

The Congressman’s plan would cut about $5 trillion in spending with these cuts coming mostly from entitlement programs such as Medicaid, as well as lowering the subsidies that are currently provisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

The proposal focuses on the goal of eventually balancing the budget within the decade. Many Democrats have lashed out at the plan and cited its leniency on corporations and the wealthy but plans to cut entitlements for the poor.

The budget proposal comes after Mr. Ryan and Democratic Senator Patty Murray settled on a bipartisan bill to finance the government this year.

Many see Ryan as a potential candidate for the White House in 2016 and this proposal gives a blueprint of his vision for government spending, should the control of the White House shift to the Republican Party.

The Congressional Budget Office reported that under current federal spending trends, the amount of money spent on programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid will grow faster than the economy itself in the coming decade and could equal as much as 23% of the total Gross Domestic Product, should these patterns continue.

Mr. Ryan has pushed for a proposal that sharply differs from that of Democratic proposals, as their support for entitlements remains a top priority.

The post Ryan Budget Proposal Lays Blueprint for a GOP Balanced Budget appeared first on Follow My Vote.