Potential Immigration Legislation

For the most part, I disagree with what Anjana says in her post. I do agree that this year probably isn't the best time to embark on immigration reform, but the system has problems and needs to be fixed at some point. This may involve the kind of legislation that she argues against. The bill has not been written yet, but will be discussed over the summer and perhaps drafted this fall. It would make it possible for illegal immigrants to gain legal status, and also strengthen border security and crack down on employers that hire illegal immigrants.
Even if this legislation was drafted and passed, it probably would not drastically increase competition for citizens' employment. For one thing, the immigrants would not "automatically" get jobs in place of other Americans. They would have to apply for jobs like everyone else, and many are already working illegally - that's why they came to the U.S. in the first place. Also, revenue resulting from the bill would include not only fines, but taxes collected from newly-legal immigrants.
Anjana makes a good point about the current economy, though. A group of potentially millions of new citizens, qualified for government assistance, is the last thing our government (already heavily in debt) needs right now. The immigration system must not come before more urgent priorities such as the economy, and should wait until the country is more stable.

Reducing carbon emissions: the cap-and-trade system

In 2004, the United States emitted approximately 6,049,435,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, more than any other country and about a fifth of man-made CO2 emissions. It is estimated that since 2006 China has surpassed the U.S., but this is due to increases in Chinese emissions, rather than to any great improvements on the part of the U.S. Meanwhile, global warming is a real threat, and global greenhouse gas emissions must not continue at the present rate. The United States, as a major contributor to the pollution, has a responsibility to keep its CO2 levels in check. One method that has been proposed is the "cap-and-trade" policy endorsed by President Obama. Though this plan is criticized as effecting too much cost on consumers, no significant decrease in emissions can come without someone paying for it. Unfortunately, such decreases are necessary, and the cap-and-trade policy is a good way to do it.

Obama's plan involves setting a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted and selling credits (with the total amount sold equal to the emissions limit) to companies permitting them to release a particular amount of CO2. If a company's emission levels are lower than the amount it bought credits for, it can sell the excess credits to other companies that need more. Over time, the CO2 limit (and therefor the number of credits issued) goes down and the price of credits increases. The benefits of this plan will be significant - it will greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United States (the goal is an 80% reduction by 2050), while generating billions of dollars in revenue for the federal government.

As for the argument that the energy price increases caused by a cap-and-trade system will put too much financial strain on consumers, the government can at least partially relieve this. The revenue generated by the sale of carbon credits can be put into tax breaks, thereby offsetting the burden of higher energy costs. If most or all of the revenue is used this way, the cap-and-trade system should not have too much effect on taxpayers.

Even if the tax breaks don't completely cover the price increases, the benefits of cleaner air are worth paying a little extra for energy. Restricting CO2 emissions cannot solve the world's pollution problems, but it is an important and necessary step that the United States government must take.