The Underground Economy

The underground economy is made of people who do not work a regular paid job. They get paid under the table with no income reported and no taxes paid. Jobs in the underground economy are typically linked with illegal things such as drug dealing but also includes housekeepers and nannies.

The shadow economy is beneficial in the way that the money people make from their "secret" jobs is used for personal consumption which rises the economy. It also allows people that are having trouble getting a full or part time job in the "real" economy to earn money.

Although it can be beneficial, it can also be unfavorable. The more people are being paid under the table without taxes, the less money the government has to spend. Government programs depend on tax money. With less taxes being paid, the higher they will be so the government can do its job. In addition, people with jobs in the secret economy do not get Social Security or health benefits. There is also a higher risk of losing your job and not getting paid at all.

Net Neutrality

What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is "the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others" (1). This means that the Internet and what's in it is equally provided to everyone.

It is important that we as consumers have net neutrality because it means we have easy and equal access to the Internet. If we did not have net neutrality, to get better and faster Internet connection we would have to pay our Internet providers more.

Big companies such as Comcast would benefit a lot without net neutrality because Internet companies would have to pay them more money for their websites to run just as fast or faster than other websites (2). Without net neutralilty, small companies on the Internet would have a harder time to start up because they would have to compete for fast service against big companies (2).

The FCC can control the neutrality of the Internet because of the 1934 Communications Act. Under this act, the FCC is able to "prevent [ISPs] from manipulating how quickly or slowly sites are transmitted along their networks" (2). This means they control Internet providers and how service is delivered.

1- http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/24/net-neutrality-what-is-it-guide/23237737/ 

2- Net Neutrality: What it means for you

Spoils System vs Merit System

The spoils system, also known as patronage, was a system in which people, for their support of a party, would get government positions. This meant that many of the government members were new and from the same party as the president. Andrew Jackson is known for using the spoils system. When he became President, Jackson substituted everyone in the government for his supporters, the "Jacksonian Democrats." Jackson believed that it was good to clear out government office members to keep the government from becoming corrupt.

In 1881, Charles Guiteau assassinated President James Garfield because he was not allowed a government job. After President Garfield's assassination , Congress passed the Pendleton Act which stopped the spoils system. The Pendleton Act created a new system, the merit system. The merit system required exams for federal employment. To do this, the Pendleton Act established a  three-member Civil Service Commission administered the system. So, jobs given through the merit system were based off of skill and ability to do the job, unlike the spoils system, were jobs were given because of connections with people in the government.

I believe that the spoils system is still in a small way part of our government today. For example, Obama appointed ambassadors, but only 5 out of the 18 at that time were actual diplomats. It happens to be that the rest are people who helped Obama during his campaign. Many of these "diplomats" have raised hundreds of dollars. For example, Charles Rivkin, an entertainment mogul, who was appointed to go to Paris, France, raised $800,00 for Obama. This is an example of the spoils system. Supporters of Obama raised money for him, and as a reward they are given government jobs, whether they are qualified to do the job or not.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/politics/29web-baker.html?_r=0)

Cell Phones and the Constitution

I believe that police should not be able to look at our phones without a warrant. Unless it is an EXTREMELY urgent and dangerous situation between life and death, I believe everyone should have a right to privacy on their phones. If a person is a suspect for committing a crime and the police want to check his/her phone, they should have to have a search warrant. But if a situation is, for example, a threat against the safety of lives, or someone who has committed multiple heinous crimes and is on the most wanted list, then police should be able to look at his/her phone. There should be very specific standards to keep people safe and to prevent tragic events from occurring, but also give people as much privacy as possible.

In Riley v. California, I would have to agree with the Supreme Court. Although it was a horrible act he did, it had already occurred so I believe that the police would have needed to receive a warrant "just as the police [would] need permission to search inside someone's home" (14). Going through his phone without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And to get a warrant, the police can use e-mail and get one within 15 minutes (17). Because this case was not a real emergency situation and happened in the past, I think that the police could have gotten a warrant. And in some "now-or-never" cases, "like finding a ticking bomb or a kidnapped child," a search can occur without a warrant for these emergencies (17). This case was just not one of them. 

Vacation Blog

Last January, six same-sex couples went to the Miami-Dade County Clerk's office and demanded they have their marriage licenses, but they were turned down. The couples sued and as of today, January 5th, they have their won their lawsuit.

Miami-Dade County has become the first place in Florida to allow same-sex marriage, half a day before it is legal in the rest of the state. Less than three hours after Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel lifted the stay on the ban of gay marriage, two of the couples (Catherina Pareto and Karla Arguello, and Jeff and Todd Delmay) were married by Zabel herself. The other four couples are taking their time and plan to have the wedding of their dreams.

Florida is now the 36th state where same-sex marriage is legal after South Carolina, which legalized it in November 2014.

The fight for the right of same-sex marriage started in the 1920s and is still a HUGE issue. There are still 14 states where same-sex marriage is illegal. Many people have different opinions on this topic. Some people are all for it while others are extremely against it.

I, personally, am all for it. Love is love. So I am very happy to hear that another state has taken a step towards equality. Same-sex couples are no different than any other ordinary couple. They are people who deserve the right to be married. I find it hard to believe that some people think otherwise.

All of the articles that I have read about this event have all been positive, which I am very happy to see. This is a huge step for the same-sex couples in Florida and it should be celebrated. Because this has just happened today, there will most likely be more news about the event as well as the issue itself soon.