* The article from the NY Times by the Editorial Board headed “Senate Democrats finally take a stand” is written dealing with the Senates response to the Budget proposal made by the House. The plan would raise a $1trillion from new revenue over ten years simply by closing the existing tax loopholes and eliminating the tax breaks on the wealthy and corporations. It also provides for cutting spending by $1trillion from “wasteful projects” which are unspecified. It rejects the demand that the budget must be balanced in the short term which is the argument of Paul Ryan’s House version. The author has a clearly liberal slant and is clearly biased, and this is seen in his treatment of the Murray and Ryan Budgets. Murray is viewed positively “eliminating tax breaks on the wealthy, protection the programs that aid he poor”. Ryan’s budget on the other hand is called “the heartless collection of obsolete dogmas that is the House budget”. In discussing Ryan’s proposal the writer contrasts ”giving tax cuts for the wealthy” with cutting programs for the poor and lower income group and he specifically lists them without providing any evidence. To me this is biased reporting as the writer seeks to portray Murray’s budget as pro poor and Ryan as “heartless” towards the poor, and in fact actually going to drop taxes on the rich and take away benefits from the poor. In my view the article has a major weakness. USA might be getting out of Afghanistan, but war against Iran, Syria, and North Korea are possible and the “wasteful” programs are not specified. However Ryan s budget is presented as “give tax cuts to the wealthy” and cut benefits of the poor” with no evidence presented. The issue is probably the most important one in the United States today as the economy has lost millions of jobs. Personally I think that Ryan’s insistence on a balanced budget is important, and that Murrays plan is weak because it does not take that into account. * Brian Bennett writes an article in the LA Times “Immigration bill could favor skilled workers over relatives”. In this article he takes a look at the proposal of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham writing a bi partisan Immigration Bill. Graham wants to cancel the right of adult children and siblings of American citizens to enter the USA as immigrants, and rather open up the way for more skilled workers to immigrate into America. He proposes that the US citizen’s spouse and minor children should be unhindered. This has met opposition from Democrats, especially from Michael Honda who point’s Asian American citizens would be discriminated against. Only 15 percent of green cards are issued to job seekers, the rest to families. * I found the article to be accurate and without an ideological slant. The writer uses a respectful tone whether speaking about the Republican Senator, whom he called “an influential Republican senator”, or the Democrat senators. He simply stated the numbers, but stressed it was not going to affect spouses and minor children. He quoted Rubio’s aide saying, "There is no final agreement yet…” which gave a balance to the article that it is a discussion position not an accomplished fact. I think immigration is a very serious issue to the California with its large immigrant populations, and to individuals. Individuals who have adult children who are in another country will find this very important to their emotional well being. The issue as I see it is difficult as the USA needs skilled workers and investment immigrants. However as a nation I think we need to promote family over materialism. The