President Obama has announced that he'll seek approval from Congress before firing any missiles at Syria. So we got that much done. You know what's next, right? Both Roots Action and CREDO help you tell your Congressfolk not to attack Syria, but seek a diplomatic solution instead. Don't believe the "liberal" media's rush to judgment on the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons: some anti-Assad Syrians have themselves testified that the Saudi intelligence chief provided rebel forces with the chemical weapons used on August 21, and I'd have to think those Syrians would have at least two reasons to say exactly the opposite. Plus, our government's rather quick assessment doesn't actually confirm Syrian government involvement in the August 21 attack. No one wants to keep watching good Syrians suffer at the hands of an oppressive government. But we went down this road in 2002, folks, and it sucked. Let's not go down this road again.
Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania state legislature mulls HB 1576, the so-called Endangered Species Coordination Act, which would force the two state agencies nominally charged with designating endangered species within the state, the Fish and Boat Commission and the Game Commission, to submit all of their designations to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission as well. For "transparency"'s sake? Probably not, since the two aforementioned Commissions already have to publish their data, hold public hearings, and accept public comments. So why would nominal conservatives in the legislature want a more convoluted decision-making process? Because gas corporations can't drill and timber corporations can't log and mining corporations can't mine in areas where endangered species happen to live -- hence a very un-conservative solution that makes our government govern less well, which ain't to our benefit. So the Sierra Club helps you tell your Pennsylvania state House Rep to oppose HB 1576.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell your Congressfolk to support the Harkin/Begich efforts to expand, not cut, Social Security benefits, then the Campaign for America's Future still helps you do that. Their legislation would pay out over $800 more in benefits per year; the haters will say that's not a lot, but haters don't know, because they usually don't live on the poverty line themselves -- sadly, being a hater in America today pays very well. (Just watch cable news or Congress if you don't believe me.) The haters will also say it'll increase the deficit, but it won't -- it'll lift the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, so that income over $113,700 will actually get taxed, thus paying for the benefit hike. The haters will also say you can only solve government spending issues by cutting government spending; I'd like to see some of them apply that maxim to their own lives when a better-paying job comes around. "No, thanks; I've got a spending problem, not a revenue problem!" Doesn't sound likely, does it? But when it comes to protecting Social Security, let the haters be your motivators.