http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/02/news/economy/detroit-ruling-expected/index.html?iid=SF_E_River
Summary:
The city of Detroit has been on a steady decline with crime rates rising and the population and manufacturing production declining. A court ruling is expected to come soon on whether or not the city should be granted bankruptcy and have millions of dollars in debt erased, mostly coming out of the healthcare owed to retirees in the city. Basically every aspect of Detroit is insufficient at the moment including basic city services and the city is under far too much debt to fix it's problems.
Reaction:
I found that it was surprising that a city that was once so prosperous and the face of manufacturing in America could be turned around so quickly. It also seems unfortunate but typical that retired people would have to suffer for this. Detroit seems like it has become nothing to America but a hotbed of debt that is a burden to it's citizens as well as the rest of America. I still think that in the end bankruptcy should be granted despite it's effect on retirees, as the effect it would have on generations to come would be less severe if Detroit's debt is cut.
Connection:
This could be connected to cumbency playing a factor in elections, although politicians in Detroit that are currently in office might actually have less of a chance of being reelected, as the awful state of the city would reflect on their decisions while in office.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Maya D- National Security 1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-national-security_n_3401808.html
Summary- This article directly compares Obama's policies while he's been in office to those of George W. Bush's. While running for president Obama was known for his views on foreign policy, the treatment of prisoners of war, and his need to take our troops out of Iraq. Nowadays though, he seems focused on the war on terror more than anything else even if it means using facts that Bush himself came up with. Many of Obama's new foreign policies rely on the The Patriot Act and the usage of drones that was put into place by Bush. This seems contradicting to what the people elected him on originally on especially since it seems to be the only thing that the president is preoccupied with.
Reaction- I thought that this article had good points about the likenesses between Obama and Bush that I never noticed before. While they do have some of their policy concepts in common I don't think that that changes the views that Obama had originally. Once in office he used parts of Bush's policies before him and used them to create something that would now help the country more than it had before. Also,I see the the idea that the president is only bothering to take part in the war on terror as ridiculous. Because of the era that he was elected in it is a given that one of the main things he plans of fixing is our protection against terrorists. Saying that that's all he cares about is like saying that FDR only cared about the world war when, at the time, that was one of the most important things going on.
Connection- This connects to how we're talking about what powers the president has. Since the President has final say of the military it would make sense that a lot of the policies he's making have to to with that. Also, congress has the power to try and change a presidents policy if they believe it is wrong or unconstitutional. Since this has not happened in congress yet it is pretty safe to say that those in congress agree at least partially with what the president is doing over seas because they have not disputed him even though they have the power to.
Summary- This article directly compares Obama's policies while he's been in office to those of George W. Bush's. While running for president Obama was known for his views on foreign policy, the treatment of prisoners of war, and his need to take our troops out of Iraq. Nowadays though, he seems focused on the war on terror more than anything else even if it means using facts that Bush himself came up with. Many of Obama's new foreign policies rely on the The Patriot Act and the usage of drones that was put into place by Bush. This seems contradicting to what the people elected him on originally on especially since it seems to be the only thing that the president is preoccupied with.
Reaction- I thought that this article had good points about the likenesses between Obama and Bush that I never noticed before. While they do have some of their policy concepts in common I don't think that that changes the views that Obama had originally. Once in office he used parts of Bush's policies before him and used them to create something that would now help the country more than it had before. Also,I see the the idea that the president is only bothering to take part in the war on terror as ridiculous. Because of the era that he was elected in it is a given that one of the main things he plans of fixing is our protection against terrorists. Saying that that's all he cares about is like saying that FDR only cared about the world war when, at the time, that was one of the most important things going on.
Connection- This connects to how we're talking about what powers the president has. Since the President has final say of the military it would make sense that a lot of the policies he's making have to to with that. Also, congress has the power to try and change a presidents policy if they believe it is wrong or unconstitutional. Since this has not happened in congress yet it is pretty safe to say that those in congress agree at least partially with what the president is doing over seas because they have not disputed him even though they have the power to.
The Seventh Chuck Klutho I, Economics
Summary: Since 1947 Democratic presidents seem to be more beneficial to the U.S. economy than Republicans. Over that span of time from 1947-Present the average growth of the U.S. economy during Democratic terms is 4.35% and just 2.54 under Republican presidents. This large gap maybe due to Democrats policies being more beneficial towards economic growth or that Republicans have better economic policies, but that there is a time delay and so the Democrats reap the benefits. Another very possible explanation is that they have nothing to do with it at all. In reality the presidents and congress may have a tough time controlling America's economic growth. One part of this theory is based on oil spikes, and the sharp inclines and declines of the price of crude oil that can strike and can be difficult to control. Based on facts however, reasons the Democratic presidents have higher productivity shocks meaning that people working get more done in terms of products and such, and as a result the economy grows. Another strange thing is that consumer confidence is boosted during the first year(s) of Democratic presidents much more so than Republicans. This consumer confidence boosts spending and helps the economy.
Reaction: I find it curious how the economy grows more under Democratic presidents than Republicans and how it is hard to put real solid numbers on why it happens. It is also weird how much luck may have to do with how the economy can grow, and during which party's term. Lastly I find it difficult to figure out how us as a nation think to make something like the consumer confidence work.
Connection: This can be connected to what we are talking in class through different policies and how they may or may not effect the economy. Also how we have talked about how different parties beliefs affect their policies and also how members of a political party may be influenced by their beliefs and have an effect on the economy both for normal citizens, the president, and congress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/02/the-u-s-economy-does-better-under-democratic-presidents-is-it-just-luck/
Healthcare Bailey Schmidt
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21076298&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fm%2Fsearch%3Fpz%3D1%26cf%3Dall%26ned%3Dus%26hl%3Den%26tbs%3Dnws%253A1%26q%3Dhealthcare
Summary: After the fix of the healthcare online registration, mixed reviews are being received. Some users are unable to receive the healthcare because the website crashes mid-application, while others have had absolutely no trouble with the application. The President has aknowleged these glitches and is working to get them fixed.
Connection: This is an example of how not every idea is perfect and the President has to deal with the upset public by listening to their complaints through linkage institutions such as social media.
Reaction: The first time the website crashed it was almost expected because it was new, but even after they attempted to fix it, people are still experiencing crashes. I think until the technology experts working on this can get it to a point where the website doesn't crash at all, citizens should apply for healthcare the old fashioned way to save time and let's be really honest, sanity, because sitting on the computer applying for something to only have it crash half way through is annoying and upsetting, taken from personal experience.
Summary: After the fix of the healthcare online registration, mixed reviews are being received. Some users are unable to receive the healthcare because the website crashes mid-application, while others have had absolutely no trouble with the application. The President has aknowleged these glitches and is working to get them fixed.
Connection: This is an example of how not every idea is perfect and the President has to deal with the upset public by listening to their complaints through linkage institutions such as social media.
Reaction: The first time the website crashed it was almost expected because it was new, but even after they attempted to fix it, people are still experiencing crashes. I think until the technology experts working on this can get it to a point where the website doesn't crash at all, citizens should apply for healthcare the old fashioned way to save time and let's be really honest, sanity, because sitting on the computer applying for something to only have it crash half way through is annoying and upsetting, taken from personal experience.
Josh Malik Economics 1
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/03/news/economy/detroit-bankruptcy-ruling/index.html?iid=SF_E_Lead
Summary - The city of Detroit has recently been allowed to proceed with their bankruptcy claim due to the ruling by Judge Steven Rhodes. What this means is that the state government is going to have to cut nearly 9 billion dollars from their 11 billion dollar debt defecate. The majority of this money is going to be coming out of money owed to city employees, retirees, investors and other creditors. The people in Detroit are in outrage over this for obvious reasons. A major union has already stated that they plan to appeal the decision and the city is still continuing to negotiate with its many creditors as they draft up their plan for how they are going to cut expenses. Still, this ruling and continuation of bankruptcy by Detroit is going to affect a vast many people greatly. In one case, a 62 year old fire fighter chief retiree has been forced to apply for full time jobs at local hardware and convenience stores where he is having great trouble finding work due to his age. The man is extremely worried for his wife and himself because of how unsure they are of how they are going to pay their bills. With the recent cuts on pensions, they are going to come up short.
Reaction - I can see the argument that both the city and the people are making in this situation. In the case of Detroit, they truly are going bankrupt and have no choice but to make these cuts. While in the case of the citizens, they deserve their hard earned money and shouldn't be forced to go through this worry and in some cases, such as the one mentioned above, working again.
Connection - This can connect to what we are discussing in class in that although it is not his fault, the current governor mayor of Detroit is going to look extremely bad in the eyes of the people, and will most not likely get a re-election vote by those less educated people who vote only on how the times currently are.
Summary - The city of Detroit has recently been allowed to proceed with their bankruptcy claim due to the ruling by Judge Steven Rhodes. What this means is that the state government is going to have to cut nearly 9 billion dollars from their 11 billion dollar debt defecate. The majority of this money is going to be coming out of money owed to city employees, retirees, investors and other creditors. The people in Detroit are in outrage over this for obvious reasons. A major union has already stated that they plan to appeal the decision and the city is still continuing to negotiate with its many creditors as they draft up their plan for how they are going to cut expenses. Still, this ruling and continuation of bankruptcy by Detroit is going to affect a vast many people greatly. In one case, a 62 year old fire fighter chief retiree has been forced to apply for full time jobs at local hardware and convenience stores where he is having great trouble finding work due to his age. The man is extremely worried for his wife and himself because of how unsure they are of how they are going to pay their bills. With the recent cuts on pensions, they are going to come up short.
Reaction - I can see the argument that both the city and the people are making in this situation. In the case of Detroit, they truly are going bankrupt and have no choice but to make these cuts. While in the case of the citizens, they deserve their hard earned money and shouldn't be forced to go through this worry and in some cases, such as the one mentioned above, working again.
Connection - This can connect to what we are discussing in class in that although it is not his fault, the current governor mayor of Detroit is going to look extremely bad in the eyes of the people, and will most not likely get a re-election vote by those less educated people who vote only on how the times currently are.
Healthcare #1 Vincent
Summary: The new healthcare law exempts religious organizations from the required coverage of contraception. This exception does not include for-profit corporations. Hobby Lobby claims to be a family run corporation that tries to run its business based on Christian principles. Although it is willing to provide some contraception, it is not willing to provide drugs and devices that prevent embryos from implanting in the womb. They claim this is a complicit form of abortion. The case is being taken to the Supreme Court and the hearing will likely take place in March.
Reaction: I do not believe an employer should be able to force an employee to choose between a job and their freedom. I believe choices made about a woman’s health should be made by only she and her doctor. I do not believe it is anyone else’s place to make these decisions for her. I also believe that an employer should not be able to force their religious beliefs on an employee.
Connection: This connects to many of the litigant epitaph cases, where the hearing depends on the judges’ interpretations on the constitution. Because the constitution is so vaguely written, and because situations like this could not have been predicted by the framers, it is left to the Supreme Court to make the decision.
Matt Ernster - National Security #1
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/3/nato-seeks-clarity-troops-afghanistan/
Summary: Recently, debate has occurred with Afghanistan leaders, about the continued stay of troops in Afghanistan much like in Vietnam. Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai does not want troops to continue to wage small scale war. Karzai is angered because of instances like a child being killed in a drone bombing recently, and other civilian casualties. NATO and the US are reluctant to use the so called "zero-option", a complete removal of all troops, but it is necessary to threaten these options to gain a signing of the new bill. The bill would have about 8000 troops in Afghanistan to protect and train the citizens to defend themselves. Further debate will eventually lead to a verdict.
Reaction: I think that this issue needs to be handled with care. We do not want to have to have troops in Afghanistan forever like in Korea. However, we cant just leave the Afghans to fend for themselves if the president does not comply with the US and NATO's wants. Leaving them could result in further terrorism and a need to return. But keeping troops forever would not be in the countries best interest recourse and budget wise.
Connection: This is very connected to AP Government because our government must create and debate new policies and bills about this issue all of the time. National security will always be a major part of the policy agenda and we are very inclined to learn how the US government handles these issues and how we should go about making decisions that shape the government and its policies in the future.
Summary: Recently, debate has occurred with Afghanistan leaders, about the continued stay of troops in Afghanistan much like in Vietnam. Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai does not want troops to continue to wage small scale war. Karzai is angered because of instances like a child being killed in a drone bombing recently, and other civilian casualties. NATO and the US are reluctant to use the so called "zero-option", a complete removal of all troops, but it is necessary to threaten these options to gain a signing of the new bill. The bill would have about 8000 troops in Afghanistan to protect and train the citizens to defend themselves. Further debate will eventually lead to a verdict.
Reaction: I think that this issue needs to be handled with care. We do not want to have to have troops in Afghanistan forever like in Korea. However, we cant just leave the Afghans to fend for themselves if the president does not comply with the US and NATO's wants. Leaving them could result in further terrorism and a need to return. But keeping troops forever would not be in the countries best interest recourse and budget wise.
Connection: This is very connected to AP Government because our government must create and debate new policies and bills about this issue all of the time. National security will always be a major part of the policy agenda and we are very inclined to learn how the US government handles these issues and how we should go about making decisions that shape the government and its policies in the future.
Matt Cassady National security #1
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-ship-20131201,0,6349065.story
Summary: The U.S. government has begun outfitting ships in its reserve ready force with equipment to enable it to destroy some of Syria's chemical weapons on the sea. There is a Defense Department that neutralizes components used in chemical weapons a defense official said on condition of anonymity. It is supervising the disposal of Syria's chemical arms the US offered to destroy some of the components on a US ship. The US is supporting everyone in there efforts to destroy there chemical weapons in the best possible way to cause the least amount of harm.
Reaction: My reaction to this is that it's good to see that the US is trying to make attempts to dispose of all of these Chemical weapons and try to prevent a nuclear war which would not end well for any country win or lose that war. Also that It helps our National Security because it looks like we are trying to make an effort to make peace and will prevent attacks from coming down on us.
Connection: My connection to AP government with this article is that National Security is obviously a big issue when it comes to elections. If you do your job and keep the security of our nation safe then you will have a better chance of getting elected over someone who is going around and bombing anything in sight.
Summary: The U.S. government has begun outfitting ships in its reserve ready force with equipment to enable it to destroy some of Syria's chemical weapons on the sea. There is a Defense Department that neutralizes components used in chemical weapons a defense official said on condition of anonymity. It is supervising the disposal of Syria's chemical arms the US offered to destroy some of the components on a US ship. The US is supporting everyone in there efforts to destroy there chemical weapons in the best possible way to cause the least amount of harm.
Reaction: My reaction to this is that it's good to see that the US is trying to make attempts to dispose of all of these Chemical weapons and try to prevent a nuclear war which would not end well for any country win or lose that war. Also that It helps our National Security because it looks like we are trying to make an effort to make peace and will prevent attacks from coming down on us.
Connection: My connection to AP government with this article is that National Security is obviously a big issue when it comes to elections. If you do your job and keep the security of our nation safe then you will have a better chance of getting elected over someone who is going around and bombing anything in sight.
Fredy Stroker - Health Care
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-care-enrollment-on-web-plagued-by-bugs/2013/12/02/e3021b86-5b79-11e3-a49b-90a0e156254b_story.html
Summary: A significant percentage of Americans who have chosen health care programs from the online federal insurance marketplace have had problems using this online program. These errors by the computer system may cause to not get covered until next month. Roughly 1/3 of people have had technical difficulties with the sign up. These technical difficulties include failure to notify that there are new customers to the insurance agencies, duplicate accounts, incorrect information about family members, and more. These problems have been occurring since the program was first opened by the Obama administration in Oct 1 and is still having issues even though they have been trying to fix it. Although the website has undergone some changes and bugs have been fixed, there are still many people that are having problems.
Reaction: I am very surprised that they still haven't fixed everything about this website. The government is so large, and draws in so much money that I would've thought they could've fixed this fairly easy. It is not fair to have many Americans still without health care because the government can't run a normal website that works correctly. They need to fix this as soon as possible or change what they are doing in my opinion.
Connection: This relates to how we've talked about technology changing the way politics are and how the government works. Now, we can log into a website and get health care instantly. This would've sounds crazy 10 years ago. This also has it's negative aspects, as shown here. Technology is not always perfect, and it can have problems. We cannot rely solely on technology because it isn't always reliable.
Katherine Baer - National Security
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/12/news/la-pn-senate-committee-reporters-shield-law-20130912
Senate committee approves reporters' shield law
Summary: Senate has recently approved a bill that protects journalists from being forced to testify about their work. The bill protects those who supply news for "an entity or service that disseminates news and information". Journalists are compelled to disclose certain information if the government feels it threats national security. The Obama administration has been criticized for getting phone records from reporters with the help of the NSA. Congress members differ in their opinions on the bill. Some republicans feel we don't need another law to protect the press if the government refrained from abusing reporters. In general, democrats feel the law is the best way to prevent future presidential administration from "overstepping their authority".
Reflection: I think this bill is a good thing because it pleases the majority of the government and press. The government is able to step in and question journalists about their work if it seems to threat national security, which I think is huge. Whatever the government deems a threat can be checked, which will protect our country and its people. The press is able to do their job and report news as necessary with fewer road blocks. This will likely allow them to be more effective journalists. I understand why some congress members feel we don't need another law, but I think under the current circumstances the law is fitting and will help future administrations in the long run.
Connection: This idea of giving the press free reign to publish virtually whatever they want without being questioned can be compared to the court case of NY Times vs. Sullivan. In this case, it was decided that someone must prove what was published to be a lie, confirm that the reporter knew it was a lie and that they intended harm by publishing it. Without this proof, people have no affect whatsoever on what is published. It is extremely difficult for someone to prove those three things, which makes it easy for reporters to get away with slandering people and gives them free ride to publish what they want. The law senate approved recently also makes it easier for press to publish what they want,-and not be questioned about it. The only limitation is that if it threatens national security, the government can step in. Overall, both NY Times vs. Sullivan and the law recently passed by Senate give the press a lot of freedom.
Alex Connor National Security
Ruling Makes Detroit Biggest City to Qualify for Bankruptcy
Summarize: To summarize, Detroit is billions of dollars in debt and filed for bankruptcy under a courts ruling. Because Detroit can not afford to provide basic services to it's population of around 680,000 people. Because of this, Detroit as to start a new adjustment plan which could mean taking money away from retirees and pensions. Because of Chapter 9, the employee pensions can be taken away because they are only at state level and not federal. Detroit has to make hard decisions to freshly start their city and get itself out of bankruptcy.
Reaction: I believe this relates to National Security because even though it is not another country waging war on us, it is America's internal struggle that causes national issues. I am in sock that such a large city can go bankrupt when it used to be the city leading in the auto industry. I am also surprised that to save money and to get out of debt, they are willing to take away retirement money and pensions. People worked hard to get that money and without it, some may go homeless after working hard their whole lives and that is saddening.
Connection: I think this connects to the interstate commerce clause in that because the issues and debt within Detroit are mainly in Michigan, like the pensions and retirement, the Federal Government can not completely step in and take charge buy giving people their money for instance. Of course this is a national issue, because Detroit is a huge city, but it is currently mainly at state level.
Economics
August 7 2013
Summary: With Congress and Obama creating controversy over Obamacare, a big question that is going around is if Obamacare will help or hurt the economy. Some negatives predicted with Obamacare is that job employment may go down and stunt growth. With Obamacare, more taxes will be added to things like health insurance companies and tanning salons. One major change comes with restaurants. Since they will have to provide medical insurance to full-time employees, restaurant owners will start to reduce the number of full-time employees in order to save money. The good sides to this however is that it will provide many Americans with health insurance that they would not have been previously been able to get. It costs $200 billion due to worker absentees when workers are on sick leave, and Obamacare will not eliminate this, but it is predicted to help reduce this cost.
Reaction: I personally believe that Obamacare is trying to help those without health care while trying to help the economy at the same time, and I believe that's saying something. While I do not know if it will help or hurt the economy, I believe trying this can't increase the debt too much than it already is. I will leave it up to our congressmen to decide if it will help or hurt the economy, but I believe that it is worth it to at least try.
Connection: Personally, I am not finding the biggest connection between Obamacare and myself at this age. Without a full-time job and the fact that I can be on my parents plan until I am 26, I feel like I am in a pretty good position when it comes to health care. When I am out of College and older than 26, I'm sure this will have more of an impact on me (If Obamacare is even still around). I predict that a new medicare plan will be intact by then anyways, so I will have to sit by on this one for now.
The Aaron Lawrence Econ. 1
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/black-friday-weekend-spending-drop-pressures-u-s-stores.html
Summary: We all know that the year's biggest shopping day was on Thursday night through Friday. Their were plenty of shoppers this year compared to last year, almost 2 million more, but on the down side, there were less sales. Sales dropped almost 4% this year, which dropped the average spending down to $407. This is a problem for retailers because 20%-40% of their revenues come during black friday. Retailers suggest that this happened due to the financial position that many americans are in. They think that spending is down because of the employment of people and the incomes that they are getting, which could explain the reduction of sales. Because people reduced their spending, this puts large retail stores in a tighter situation financially because much of their gross profit during black friday, which means that they need to increase sales within the next three weeks. In Mall of America, shoppers seemed to have their mind set on what they wanted, they came in and got what they wanted, then left. For many retailers, they rely on customers buying things randomly with no set goal, but this year, most stores just saw customers grab their wants and go. December will be a huge month for retailers in their attempt to gain more profit.
Reaction: I find it hard to believe that with more shoppers who came on black friday, resulted in less profit than last year. I understand people not buying more than the necessities, but its important to spend in this economy. My hope is that stores make up more profit in the next few weeks, and consumer spending increases in order to help this economy fully recover. The good news is that 2 million more shoppers participated this year, which shows more hope for consumer spending.
Relation: Our economy relies on our spending, in order for our economy to be successful. "You gotta spend money to make money" as an old saying goes. When we spend money, our economy grows, and when the economy grows, more opportunities like employment will open up for people, along with better financial situations for people.
Summary: We all know that the year's biggest shopping day was on Thursday night through Friday. Their were plenty of shoppers this year compared to last year, almost 2 million more, but on the down side, there were less sales. Sales dropped almost 4% this year, which dropped the average spending down to $407. This is a problem for retailers because 20%-40% of their revenues come during black friday. Retailers suggest that this happened due to the financial position that many americans are in. They think that spending is down because of the employment of people and the incomes that they are getting, which could explain the reduction of sales. Because people reduced their spending, this puts large retail stores in a tighter situation financially because much of their gross profit during black friday, which means that they need to increase sales within the next three weeks. In Mall of America, shoppers seemed to have their mind set on what they wanted, they came in and got what they wanted, then left. For many retailers, they rely on customers buying things randomly with no set goal, but this year, most stores just saw customers grab their wants and go. December will be a huge month for retailers in their attempt to gain more profit.
Reaction: I find it hard to believe that with more shoppers who came on black friday, resulted in less profit than last year. I understand people not buying more than the necessities, but its important to spend in this economy. My hope is that stores make up more profit in the next few weeks, and consumer spending increases in order to help this economy fully recover. The good news is that 2 million more shoppers participated this year, which shows more hope for consumer spending.
Relation: Our economy relies on our spending, in order for our economy to be successful. "You gotta spend money to make money" as an old saying goes. When we spend money, our economy grows, and when the economy grows, more opportunities like employment will open up for people, along with better financial situations for people.
Aimee Plante - Social Welfare
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/welfare-drug-test_n_3873177.html
SUMMARY: The North Carolina GOP passed a bill requiring citizens to be tested for drugs before receiving welfare; however, Gov. Pat McCrory (R) vetoed the bill. Although the statehouse has since overridden the governor's decision, McCrory also refuses to take action on the law's implementation until it has received sufficient funds. Many Republicans argue that, by not implementing the law, those who waste their money on drugs are not being properly managed to save money for those who truly need it. According to McCrory, his decision was not based on support for drug abuse, but rather on previous attempts in other states to dissuade drug users seeking welfare. Florida's drug testing in 2011 had apparently cost more than it saved, for example. With this information, the governor concluded that there are better -- and cheaper -- ways to discourage drug abuse.
REACTION: I definitely understand why the GOP wants to test welfare users. If people are only so poor because they waste their money on illegal substances, why should they get the same benefits as those who truly cannot do anything about their situation? It makes sense, yet I believe McCrory is completely rational for looking at past implementations of similar laws and deciding that the law is a bad move. I believe that there are many truly helpless people who are addicted to drugs and that there is a better option in combating the issue than denying money to those who cannot help themselves. Looking at the law from an economic and effective perspective, I believe that McCrory is making the right decision.
CONNECTION: This connects to the US government's division of power. Through federalism, states are given the same opportunity as the national government to regulate citizen's actions. Just as the POTUS can veto a bill, the governor of North Carolina can to serve as a check for the laws passed within his/her state. NC is essentially dealing with a smaller case of the slow legislation process we can recognize in our national government. It is also very interesting to note that this particular bill is backed predominately by Republicans while the Republican governor is fighting it. We hear about this in cases of divided government, but it seems the executive of the state's Republican representation is crossing party lines on this issue.
SUMMARY: The North Carolina GOP passed a bill requiring citizens to be tested for drugs before receiving welfare; however, Gov. Pat McCrory (R) vetoed the bill. Although the statehouse has since overridden the governor's decision, McCrory also refuses to take action on the law's implementation until it has received sufficient funds. Many Republicans argue that, by not implementing the law, those who waste their money on drugs are not being properly managed to save money for those who truly need it. According to McCrory, his decision was not based on support for drug abuse, but rather on previous attempts in other states to dissuade drug users seeking welfare. Florida's drug testing in 2011 had apparently cost more than it saved, for example. With this information, the governor concluded that there are better -- and cheaper -- ways to discourage drug abuse.
REACTION: I definitely understand why the GOP wants to test welfare users. If people are only so poor because they waste their money on illegal substances, why should they get the same benefits as those who truly cannot do anything about their situation? It makes sense, yet I believe McCrory is completely rational for looking at past implementations of similar laws and deciding that the law is a bad move. I believe that there are many truly helpless people who are addicted to drugs and that there is a better option in combating the issue than denying money to those who cannot help themselves. Looking at the law from an economic and effective perspective, I believe that McCrory is making the right decision.
CONNECTION: This connects to the US government's division of power. Through federalism, states are given the same opportunity as the national government to regulate citizen's actions. Just as the POTUS can veto a bill, the governor of North Carolina can to serve as a check for the laws passed within his/her state. NC is essentially dealing with a smaller case of the slow legislation process we can recognize in our national government. It is also very interesting to note that this particular bill is backed predominately by Republicans while the Republican governor is fighting it. We hear about this in cases of divided government, but it seems the executive of the state's Republican representation is crossing party lines on this issue.
Weinstein Environment #1
Summary: A select few Miami schools have become the first of many to introduce a new element to school lunches. Foods are being served on plates made from sugar cane, a farmer-friendly compost. The district hopes to replace all plastic foam trays with the new plates by September 2014. Members of the Urban School Food Alliance, six big-city school systems including Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York and Orlando, wish to introduce the dishes to over 2.6 million students in the specified areas. This would mean the production of nearly 271 million sugar cane plates per year. Instituting these platters is simply a starting point for the alliance who plan to gather a large amount of funds which will be used to persuade major suppliers to produce other eco-friendly and healthier alternatives to current lunchroom items. This week kicks off the start to the New York City Education Department’s trial with the plates which will be used in four different schools for breakfast and lunch. Healthier foods are the next topic of concern among the alliance. Numerous school food service officials support the changes and hope students will take the good habits they learn from these advancements and carry them into adulthood. However, these developments come at a cost. The sugar cane plates cost fifteen cents per dish while traditional plastic foam trays are only about five cents per dish, but Eric Goldstein, the chief executive of school support services in New York City, believes that companies will lower prices. This is due to the fact that all members of the Urban School Food Alliance will place their orders through the same manufacturers, thus creating a huge contract for one corporation.
Reaction: I am in favor of removing plastic foam trays from school cafeterias. These are made from petroleum byproducts and become garbage in landfills. While I think the sugar cane plates are a better alternative, they are more expensive. It is true that they will compost and are environmentally smart, but they can only be used once. The plastic trays that the Bettendorf school system uses are reusable, unlike both the sugar cane plates and the foam trays. This method is not foolproof either as school food service officials may have the added job of washing dishes which equates to more hot water being used. Overall, I am happy to see the alliance taking steps in the right direction towards healthier foods and eco-friendly dining, but advancements will not be made overnight.
Connection: Chapter 19 discusses the increased calling from American people for environmental reforms. The volume of regulations and the increased spending for programs has increased the scope of government, and the Democrats favor these advancements more than Republicans. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 was created in hopes to clean up the nation’s rivers and lakes. The plastic foam trays do not easily compost, unlike the sugar cane plates. This increases the likeliness of such trays ending up in bodies of water, thus exemplifying the need for that piece of legislation.
Morgan Estok- Economics #1
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/business/economy/factories-worldwide-are-showing-momentum.html?ref=unitedstateseconomy
Summary: This article is about the increase in global manufacturing that has happened this past month and its effects on the national and global economy. On Monday, figures were released that showed factory operation at its healthiest since the spring of 2011 and well above what economists had been expecting. Even though Wall Street stocks fell slightly on Monday, the figures for the year so far, show that business is increasing for large companies despite many government cutbacks from around the world. Economists are hoping that this upswing in manufacturing will permeate into the labor market and allow the Federal Reserve to being its stimulus efforts again. October proved to be good for the job market, as unemployment went from 7.3% to 7.1%, despite the government shut down. Many believe that this increase in manufacturing and decrease in unemployment is due largely to a swell in government funded construction.
Reaction: I, obviously, believe that this is a very positive situation for our country to be in right now. I'm actually surprised that the unemployment rate went down in October even with the government shut down. I also think that many people judge how our economy is doing, solely on how Wall Street is doing, which isn't necessarily true. This proves that even though stocks are down, other parts of our economy can be thriving. It also brings into perspective, what this does for the global economy, which is just as (if not more) important and crucial as the national economy.
Connection: This can be connected to capitalism and how it can be beneficial to the economy. Conservatives would be thrilled to see that large companies are having an increase in business, not only nationally, but globally as well. Liberals can't ignore that these big businesses are allowing unemployment rates to drop and purchasing of goods by other countries to rise. Even with the government cut backs and restrictions that have been set, large manufacturers can still maintain an increase in business.
Summary: This article is about the increase in global manufacturing that has happened this past month and its effects on the national and global economy. On Monday, figures were released that showed factory operation at its healthiest since the spring of 2011 and well above what economists had been expecting. Even though Wall Street stocks fell slightly on Monday, the figures for the year so far, show that business is increasing for large companies despite many government cutbacks from around the world. Economists are hoping that this upswing in manufacturing will permeate into the labor market and allow the Federal Reserve to being its stimulus efforts again. October proved to be good for the job market, as unemployment went from 7.3% to 7.1%, despite the government shut down. Many believe that this increase in manufacturing and decrease in unemployment is due largely to a swell in government funded construction.
Reaction: I, obviously, believe that this is a very positive situation for our country to be in right now. I'm actually surprised that the unemployment rate went down in October even with the government shut down. I also think that many people judge how our economy is doing, solely on how Wall Street is doing, which isn't necessarily true. This proves that even though stocks are down, other parts of our economy can be thriving. It also brings into perspective, what this does for the global economy, which is just as (if not more) important and crucial as the national economy.
Connection: This can be connected to capitalism and how it can be beneficial to the economy. Conservatives would be thrilled to see that large companies are having an increase in business, not only nationally, but globally as well. Liberals can't ignore that these big businesses are allowing unemployment rates to drop and purchasing of goods by other countries to rise. Even with the government cut backs and restrictions that have been set, large manufacturers can still maintain an increase in business.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Health Care #1: Weaver
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/updated-healthcaregov-gets-mixed-reviews/2013/12/02/b78c5d8a-5bb1-11e3-801f-1f90bf692c9b_story.html
SUMMARY: healthcare.gov was updated today (Monday) so that the consumer can actually get on the site. As expected, different reviews were stated. Specialists in Utah said that 3/4 successfully got healthcare within an hour go logging in. North Dakota, Alabama, and Wisconsin also had positive reactions yo the site. However, Iowa, Illinois, and Florida wished more upon the website. Some hospitals in these areas stated that they had high hopes, and those hopes were squashed. Out of the dozens attempts online, only one was able to decide on a plan. The site seemed to work well in he morning, however, started to glitch around 10 a.m. Approximately 750,000 people had visited the sight by this afternoon.
REACTION: In my 16 years of living, if asked if Americans were strongly opinionated, I wouldn't hesitate to answer yes. Being strongly opinionated isn't a bad thing. If we weren't, I don't think we could grow and improve as a country. When healthcare.gov failed the first time, people made such a fuss about it that the government was put in a position to quickly fix it. If there wasn't such a strong opinion, change wouldn't have come so quickly. The government wouldn't know what we, as a nation, want if there isn't strong opinions.
CONNECTION: I can connect this to ap gov because while all the academic award participants were practicing their procession, we watched a video breaking down the health care act. By the first of 2014, this act will come into play. This video was really informative because it broke down the act and what was wrong with health care before. I didn't know that people with asthma have difficulties finding insurance companies because people don't want to insure them. This is because they have increased health factors and more money will be spent on them. Also, people with complex medical needs, like cancer or a major surgery, could go over a certain quota of money (let's say $500,000) and the insurance money stop covering them. This act will stop these problems to give people the same opportunities for health care.
SUMMARY: healthcare.gov was updated today (Monday) so that the consumer can actually get on the site. As expected, different reviews were stated. Specialists in Utah said that 3/4 successfully got healthcare within an hour go logging in. North Dakota, Alabama, and Wisconsin also had positive reactions yo the site. However, Iowa, Illinois, and Florida wished more upon the website. Some hospitals in these areas stated that they had high hopes, and those hopes were squashed. Out of the dozens attempts online, only one was able to decide on a plan. The site seemed to work well in he morning, however, started to glitch around 10 a.m. Approximately 750,000 people had visited the sight by this afternoon.
REACTION: In my 16 years of living, if asked if Americans were strongly opinionated, I wouldn't hesitate to answer yes. Being strongly opinionated isn't a bad thing. If we weren't, I don't think we could grow and improve as a country. When healthcare.gov failed the first time, people made such a fuss about it that the government was put in a position to quickly fix it. If there wasn't such a strong opinion, change wouldn't have come so quickly. The government wouldn't know what we, as a nation, want if there isn't strong opinions.
CONNECTION: I can connect this to ap gov because while all the academic award participants were practicing their procession, we watched a video breaking down the health care act. By the first of 2014, this act will come into play. This video was really informative because it broke down the act and what was wrong with health care before. I didn't know that people with asthma have difficulties finding insurance companies because people don't want to insure them. This is because they have increased health factors and more money will be spent on them. Also, people with complex medical needs, like cancer or a major surgery, could go over a certain quota of money (let's say $500,000) and the insurance money stop covering them. This act will stop these problems to give people the same opportunities for health care.
Carter Himmelman Economics
Home Permits and prices Rise, Despite mortgage rates
Summary: In October, the price of a house permit rose to the highest it has ever been in five and a half years. In September there was a even larger gain in single-family homes, suggesting that the interest rate of mortgages will rise. On Tuesday there has been signs of strength in the economy. There has been headwinds from rising mortgage rates. There has been many different things that have been effected from the rising rates. One thing was building permits, they rose 6.2% last month. Secondly housing permits have been effected, it rose 5.2% when it was at 13.9%. House prices have risen because of foreclosed houses.
Reaction: Well I am not that knowledgeable on the mortgage rates. So I do not know a lot about this. So in my opinion I think that the rising mortgage rates is very shocking. I do know that the housing market is not that good right now. Just seeing how high the percentages have risen is very frightening. Even though I am not looking for a house, when I do this is going to effect me a lot. This will not make me want to buy a house.
Connection: This article can relate to many things in government. One thing is that they have to make many different policies. They have to make policies to change the mortgage rates to effect the economy.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Health Care #1 - Alexis Tansey
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304448204579186322449012040
Summary: The state of Oklahoma has sued the Obama administration because health insurance premiums are increasing and coverage is decreasing. They are trying to keep the government from imposing tax penalties on certain states. If this is successful, the deficit spending associated with the health care act could be reduced tremendously. The government is imposing tax penalties on states who refuse to create their own health care exchange. The majority of states, including Oklahoma, have refused to create their own exchanges. States are angry that their people are being taxed because of this. Other states and businesses have also sued the federal government. The Obama administration will appeal for summary judgement and the courts will decide how to proceed. According to the law, states can not be forced to set up their own exchanges. The success of these lawsuits would largely contribute to the "defunding" of the affordable care act.
Reaction: I agree with Oklahoma. I do not think the federal government should be allowed to tax states if the law says that they don't have to create their own exchange. It was not in Oklahoma's best interest to create their own exchange and they should definitely not be punished. It should tell the government something that the majority of states do not want to comply with the affordable care act.
Connection: Every Friday in this class, we take notes on litigant epitaphs and study many court cases. Oklahoma is suing the federal government right now, a case that could be taken to Supreme Court. Maybe this will be a case that is studied in the future.
Summary: The state of Oklahoma has sued the Obama administration because health insurance premiums are increasing and coverage is decreasing. They are trying to keep the government from imposing tax penalties on certain states. If this is successful, the deficit spending associated with the health care act could be reduced tremendously. The government is imposing tax penalties on states who refuse to create their own health care exchange. The majority of states, including Oklahoma, have refused to create their own exchanges. States are angry that their people are being taxed because of this. Other states and businesses have also sued the federal government. The Obama administration will appeal for summary judgement and the courts will decide how to proceed. According to the law, states can not be forced to set up their own exchanges. The success of these lawsuits would largely contribute to the "defunding" of the affordable care act.
Reaction: I agree with Oklahoma. I do not think the federal government should be allowed to tax states if the law says that they don't have to create their own exchange. It was not in Oklahoma's best interest to create their own exchange and they should definitely not be punished. It should tell the government something that the majority of states do not want to comply with the affordable care act.
Connection: Every Friday in this class, we take notes on litigant epitaphs and study many court cases. Oklahoma is suing the federal government right now, a case that could be taken to Supreme Court. Maybe this will be a case that is studied in the future.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Josh Kinyon Economics Post 1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2013/11/29/entrepreneurs-whats-the-impact-of-the-obamacare-delay/
SUMMARY: This article talks about the economic impacts of the delay of the small business mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Small businesses will now have more time to set up exchanges to provide employees with health insurance. If they do not provide the insurance, they will have to pay $3000 per violation. These businesses could potentially get tax credits for some of the premiums paid. It may place a major strain on some businesses. In addition, another purpose for the delay was the rough roll-out of the Affordable Care Act which caused problems with people trying to get insurance and states trying to set up exchanges. It is feared that the delay of this mandate will cause premiums to increase. Overall, there are many concerns about the delay, but there are some potential benefits to the delay as well.
REACTION: I completely support the delay of the requirement for businesses to provide health insurance to employees. I am worried that it may have adverse effects on some small businesses. The profit margins on some of these businesses are actually quite slim. These companies cannot afford additional expenses. While the tax breaks may help them out, they will still be burdened by the ACA. The delay will only delay the impacts of this. While I believe that every American should have access to low-priced health insurance, I do not believe that the government has the right to tell businesses what expenses they should incur. That would require an overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause to do. I do not see how enforcing health insurance requirements falls within the boundaries of interstate commerce. I think that a repeal of that part of the ACA would be beneficial. I support some parts of the ACA, such as penalizing hospitals with high rates of re admittance, but this is one part that is harmful to the American economy. I hope that within the time-frame for implementation of this part, that politicians come together to repeal this potentially economically harmful requirement. Overall, I do think that a delay is good, but a full repeal of that provision would be better.
CONNECTION: This connects to the powers of the presidency that we are learning about in class. There was no law to delay the provision, but the Department of Health and Human Services decided on the delay. This connects back to the enforcement power of the Bureaucracy. The Department of Health and Human Services oversees the enforcement of this provision, and thus has the power to announce a delay in this provision. Overall, this clearly shows the power of the bureaucracy to regulate.
SUMMARY: This article talks about the economic impacts of the delay of the small business mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Small businesses will now have more time to set up exchanges to provide employees with health insurance. If they do not provide the insurance, they will have to pay $3000 per violation. These businesses could potentially get tax credits for some of the premiums paid. It may place a major strain on some businesses. In addition, another purpose for the delay was the rough roll-out of the Affordable Care Act which caused problems with people trying to get insurance and states trying to set up exchanges. It is feared that the delay of this mandate will cause premiums to increase. Overall, there are many concerns about the delay, but there are some potential benefits to the delay as well.
REACTION: I completely support the delay of the requirement for businesses to provide health insurance to employees. I am worried that it may have adverse effects on some small businesses. The profit margins on some of these businesses are actually quite slim. These companies cannot afford additional expenses. While the tax breaks may help them out, they will still be burdened by the ACA. The delay will only delay the impacts of this. While I believe that every American should have access to low-priced health insurance, I do not believe that the government has the right to tell businesses what expenses they should incur. That would require an overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause to do. I do not see how enforcing health insurance requirements falls within the boundaries of interstate commerce. I think that a repeal of that part of the ACA would be beneficial. I support some parts of the ACA, such as penalizing hospitals with high rates of re admittance, but this is one part that is harmful to the American economy. I hope that within the time-frame for implementation of this part, that politicians come together to repeal this potentially economically harmful requirement. Overall, I do think that a delay is good, but a full repeal of that provision would be better.
CONNECTION: This connects to the powers of the presidency that we are learning about in class. There was no law to delay the provision, but the Department of Health and Human Services decided on the delay. This connects back to the enforcement power of the Bureaucracy. The Department of Health and Human Services oversees the enforcement of this provision, and thus has the power to announce a delay in this provision. Overall, this clearly shows the power of the bureaucracy to regulate.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
National Security 2 - Kline
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html
Summary: Julian Assange will most likely not be facing charges for publishing classified documents. The Justice Department has determined that although Assange published sensitive material and state secrets, he was not the one who leaked them. Acting as a reporter, Assange was deemed within his rights to publish the material. Assange's main defense in this case is that if the US were to pursue charges against him, charges would also need to be brought up against the New York Times and many other major news companies.
Reaction: I think that although it is important to find the right balance between freedom of speech and national security, that Assange did have the right to publish the secrets. However, it may not have been the most thought out plan to publish it due to the content.
Connection: This relates to the governments need to conduct safe national security policy and the first amendment, which we've talked about in class. This is also similar to supreme court cases we've talked about dealing with national security's priority over freedom of speech.
Summary: Julian Assange will most likely not be facing charges for publishing classified documents. The Justice Department has determined that although Assange published sensitive material and state secrets, he was not the one who leaked them. Acting as a reporter, Assange was deemed within his rights to publish the material. Assange's main defense in this case is that if the US were to pursue charges against him, charges would also need to be brought up against the New York Times and many other major news companies.
Reaction: I think that although it is important to find the right balance between freedom of speech and national security, that Assange did have the right to publish the secrets. However, it may not have been the most thought out plan to publish it due to the content.
Connection: This relates to the governments need to conduct safe national security policy and the first amendment, which we've talked about in class. This is also similar to supreme court cases we've talked about dealing with national security's priority over freedom of speech.
Weinstein Social Welfare #2
Summary: This article describes how political elections are affected by welfare. The journalist suggests that midterm elections will favor Republicans, which is typical as the Democrats hold the presidential office. However, he believes that the presidential race might again result in a Democratic victory. There are a greater number of families relying on government assistance, as 49.1% of people in 2011 received welfare compared to 30% in 1983. Americans who rely on these services vote for the candidates who promise to maintain, and in some cases increase, this aid. Democrats are more likely to gain the support of these voters. In 2012, 20% of voters had an annual income under $30,000, and of this group 63% voted for Obama while 35% favored Romney. Romney, in a conference call after losing the election, credited Obama’s success to his promises of expanding welfare.
Reaction: I am not overly surprised with the statements made in the article. A considerable number of Americans rely on some form of welfare, and it makes sense for those who receive it to favor the often Democratic candidate who promises to maintain government aid. Welfare plays a major role in elections and it is a critical issue in the nation. I am curious to know for which candidate the journalist voted during the 2012 elections as he seems to have a slight bias towards Romney. While many of Obama’s votes came from supporters of welfare, Romney made promises throughout his campaign as well, so I am unsure as to whether I believe that it was the primary reason Obama won the election. I believe the 2016 election could go to a Republican or a Democrat. It is difficult to predict a party’s success now as a lot can happen in two or three years.
Connection: This relates to the mandate theory of elections from chapter ten. According to this theory citizens vote for the candidate whose policy promises they favor, and consequently the election winner has mandate from the people to carry out the promised policies. Those who rely on some form of government aid support the nominee who will continue welfare programs. As we learned while studying political ideologies, Democrats frequently favor stronger government aid over Republicans. The expansion of welfare programs leads to a greater scope of government.
Environment #2 Matt Cassady
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-africa-sharks-tuna-20131125,0,393301.story#axzz2loTnobzK
Summary: is about a proposal to ban fishing of endangered shark called the porbeagle shark was blocked after the eight day meeting in Cape Town. In this proposal there was major Atlantic tuna and shark fishing nations according to people at the meeting. The porbeagle shark is very low in reproductive capacity. The ICCAT nations announced that force large fishing vessels to carry a unique identification number beginning in 2016, after illegal cases in West Africa with ships changing names and flags in order to evade sanctions over illegal fishing. But the one thing they will always stop you for is porbeagle shark fishing.
Reaction: My reaction is that it is a good thing that they put these laws into affect because if the shark species goes extinct then the food chain and food web would get messed up and will cause a disturbance in society. Also, that it is especially good for this species that they made it illegal to fish for theses sharks because they are at a low reproductive rate which will make it harder to bring these sharks back.
Connection: The connection to government for this article is that if a certain animal goes extinct then people will look at the government and ask why they didn't do more to help save that certain species. Also that it may have a small effect on the next election if they don't keep the environment a safe place for anyone.
Summary: is about a proposal to ban fishing of endangered shark called the porbeagle shark was blocked after the eight day meeting in Cape Town. In this proposal there was major Atlantic tuna and shark fishing nations according to people at the meeting. The porbeagle shark is very low in reproductive capacity. The ICCAT nations announced that force large fishing vessels to carry a unique identification number beginning in 2016, after illegal cases in West Africa with ships changing names and flags in order to evade sanctions over illegal fishing. But the one thing they will always stop you for is porbeagle shark fishing.
Reaction: My reaction is that it is a good thing that they put these laws into affect because if the shark species goes extinct then the food chain and food web would get messed up and will cause a disturbance in society. Also, that it is especially good for this species that they made it illegal to fish for theses sharks because they are at a low reproductive rate which will make it harder to bring these sharks back.
Connection: The connection to government for this article is that if a certain animal goes extinct then people will look at the government and ask why they didn't do more to help save that certain species. Also that it may have a small effect on the next election if they don't keep the environment a safe place for anyone.
Zach Mouw nat security Libya
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/28/not-acceptable-security-concerns-as-dhs-weighs-lifting-libya-restrictions/
Summary:
Since 1983, Libyan people have been restricted by homeland security in America to come to the U.S. to train in the aviation and nuclear fields of study. This restriction is being gradually lifted, as Libya has become a democracy and significantly less of a threat to be a source of terrorism. This decision by the Department of Homeland Security has run into strong opposition from republicans, who seem to be astounded that the Obama administration could overlook such an obvious terrorist threat. The DHS as well as many other Americans are behind this action though, and agree that our relationship with Libya is becoming much more stable than in previous years.
Reaction:
I think that for as much as people talk about "world peace" this would be a great stride to achieving this, and I am surprised lifting this restriction is debated at all. If the Department of Homeland Security thinks that it is safe to allow, I would have confidence in that judgment. Another thing that I found interesting is just how long we have had conflicts with Libya. I obviously heard all the news in the last couple years about overthrowing Quaddafi and the dictatorship, but I assumed that it was all recent developments that did not connect all the way back to the 80's.
Connection:
I would say that Republican politicians are acting with a delegate mindset by opposing this movement, as many of their constituents and voters most likely oppose it as well. It would be very detrimental to a politician's reputation to say that they endangered national security, especially is their voters are largely conservative.
Summary:
Since 1983, Libyan people have been restricted by homeland security in America to come to the U.S. to train in the aviation and nuclear fields of study. This restriction is being gradually lifted, as Libya has become a democracy and significantly less of a threat to be a source of terrorism. This decision by the Department of Homeland Security has run into strong opposition from republicans, who seem to be astounded that the Obama administration could overlook such an obvious terrorist threat. The DHS as well as many other Americans are behind this action though, and agree that our relationship with Libya is becoming much more stable than in previous years.
Reaction:
I think that for as much as people talk about "world peace" this would be a great stride to achieving this, and I am surprised lifting this restriction is debated at all. If the Department of Homeland Security thinks that it is safe to allow, I would have confidence in that judgment. Another thing that I found interesting is just how long we have had conflicts with Libya. I obviously heard all the news in the last couple years about overthrowing Quaddafi and the dictatorship, but I assumed that it was all recent developments that did not connect all the way back to the 80's.
Connection:
I would say that Republican politicians are acting with a delegate mindset by opposing this movement, as many of their constituents and voters most likely oppose it as well. It would be very detrimental to a politician's reputation to say that they endangered national security, especially is their voters are largely conservative.
Aimee Plante - Economics no. 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/white-house-democrats-economy_n_4322761.html
SUMMARY: Since the government shutdown and Affordable Care Act website slip-up, the government has been struggling to regain positive feedback from American voters. The Obama administration is currently attempting to push its economic agenda to draw citizens' attention from the recent setbacks to brighten their image in comparison to Republicans. Vice President Joe Biden, along with cabinet members, is travelling around the country to share the details of current plans for college access for disadvantaged students and an increased minimum wage. By doing so, the Obama administration hopes to regain some trust for the Democratic party despite current issues with the roll-out of Obamacare.
REACTION: I am not entirely sure if this is due to the article or the topic in general, but the whole scheme to increase trust in the Democratic party seems pretty vague. I want to know exactly what promises are being made about college access and minimum wage, but everywhere I look, there are no details. I do not like to assume empty promises are being made, but if we are only being told that there are plans for something to change, I'd like to know exactly what those plans are. Also (this may be because the article seemed a tad biased), the idea of pushing for a new issue merely to lessen focus on a governmental mistake does not seem like an ethical move.
CONNECTION: This article relates to the two-party system's constant competition to promote the amount of potential voters in the next election. Since voters tend to blame the issues of one presidency on the entire party and vote for the other party in the next election, the Democrats are attempting to mend their public image now in order to save their chances of winning again come election time. Parties, even if they already have majority control of the government, must constantly monitor their perception among the American people to stand a chance to remain in power.
SUMMARY: Since the government shutdown and Affordable Care Act website slip-up, the government has been struggling to regain positive feedback from American voters. The Obama administration is currently attempting to push its economic agenda to draw citizens' attention from the recent setbacks to brighten their image in comparison to Republicans. Vice President Joe Biden, along with cabinet members, is travelling around the country to share the details of current plans for college access for disadvantaged students and an increased minimum wage. By doing so, the Obama administration hopes to regain some trust for the Democratic party despite current issues with the roll-out of Obamacare.
REACTION: I am not entirely sure if this is due to the article or the topic in general, but the whole scheme to increase trust in the Democratic party seems pretty vague. I want to know exactly what promises are being made about college access and minimum wage, but everywhere I look, there are no details. I do not like to assume empty promises are being made, but if we are only being told that there are plans for something to change, I'd like to know exactly what those plans are. Also (this may be because the article seemed a tad biased), the idea of pushing for a new issue merely to lessen focus on a governmental mistake does not seem like an ethical move.
CONNECTION: This article relates to the two-party system's constant competition to promote the amount of potential voters in the next election. Since voters tend to blame the issues of one presidency on the entire party and vote for the other party in the next election, the Democrats are attempting to mend their public image now in order to save their chances of winning again come election time. Parties, even if they already have majority control of the government, must constantly monitor their perception among the American people to stand a chance to remain in power.
Vincent Social Welfare #2
Summary: Los Angeles has the second largest population of homeless residents in the nation, following only New York City. As the Greater West Hollywood Food Coalition began trying to combat this issue, neighborhood watch programs began attempting to close down their operations. At exactly 6:15 every night, the coalition’s truck filled with food feeds approximately 200 hungry people. The problem is, once these hungry people have been fed, they have nowhere to go. They stick around even after the truck leaves, sleeping on sidewalks and in people’s yards. These people have become enraged by the increasing number of inhabitants living in their neighborhood streets. They argue that the coalition needs to provide restrooms and shelters if they are going to be distributing food in this area. But the coalition does not have the means to accomplish such a huge task. They are determined to focus on the same goal they’ve had for the last 27 years: to feed the hungry. Because as many of the recipients told reporters, this is the only way to many of the homeless can eat.
Reaction: I understand that families are worried about the squatters living in their front lawn but I am angered that they are willing to deprive people of meals. Instead of donating money or trying to fix the problem, the homeowners are simply trying to ban the coalition. I think this is incredibly petty and selfish. I honestly can’t believe anyone could look at a person in this situation and take what little they have away from them.
Connection: This situation mirrors that of a divided government which causes a gridlock. One side, the coalition, is determined to stay where they are. Another side, the homeowners, are determined to move the coalition elsewhere. Because both sides are so firm and so different in their beliefs, compromise is not achieved. Neither side has accomplished anything because they are unwilling to look at the other viewpoints.
Matt Ernster Enviroment; Post #6
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/nyregion/queens-industrial-site-to-be-considered-for-superfund-status.html
Summary: Recently the Environmental Protection Agency found an industrial site, in Ridgewood, Queens, that contained radioactive material. The property was previously used by Wolf-Alport Chemical Company, who sold materials to the federal government to help them research atomic bombs. It is reported that people who walk by the site frequently or work at nearby facilities may be at a higher risk of cancer. Workers at an auto shop were told that it would not effect them unless they were near it for 20 hours a day. But the EPA states that after about 40 years, serious problems may occur. The auto company has been around the area for 14 years, and only learned about the issue just a year ago. After an entire year of collecting data, government agencies decided that further cleanup should be required. The site is now nearing Superfund status. Superfund is a federal law that designed to clean up sites with contaminated or hazardous substances. If the site can be nominated onto the National Priorities List, a law program to clean up the US's most dangerous sites, it can be awarded a grant and a major cleanup can occur. Getting onto this list however, may take years.
Reaction: This seems to be a serious problem for anybody who has to be around something like this for so long every day. It seems ridiculous that the government would allow for such a site to be monitored and not properly cleaned up for such a long time. In addition, for it to take years before a cleanup is ever officially started just seems out of hand. I know that the people in the surrounding area can just move away, but they need to be compensated by either the federal government or the Wolf-Alport company.
Connection: This connects to our AP government class and our real government because of the many policies and laws that surround it. For starters, the site was originally funded or supported by our own federal government for nuclear research. Also, the Superfund and National Priorities List are examples of laws and organizations that were created by the government to regulate such environmental issues.
Summary: Recently the Environmental Protection Agency found an industrial site, in Ridgewood, Queens, that contained radioactive material. The property was previously used by Wolf-Alport Chemical Company, who sold materials to the federal government to help them research atomic bombs. It is reported that people who walk by the site frequently or work at nearby facilities may be at a higher risk of cancer. Workers at an auto shop were told that it would not effect them unless they were near it for 20 hours a day. But the EPA states that after about 40 years, serious problems may occur. The auto company has been around the area for 14 years, and only learned about the issue just a year ago. After an entire year of collecting data, government agencies decided that further cleanup should be required. The site is now nearing Superfund status. Superfund is a federal law that designed to clean up sites with contaminated or hazardous substances. If the site can be nominated onto the National Priorities List, a law program to clean up the US's most dangerous sites, it can be awarded a grant and a major cleanup can occur. Getting onto this list however, may take years.
Reaction: This seems to be a serious problem for anybody who has to be around something like this for so long every day. It seems ridiculous that the government would allow for such a site to be monitored and not properly cleaned up for such a long time. In addition, for it to take years before a cleanup is ever officially started just seems out of hand. I know that the people in the surrounding area can just move away, but they need to be compensated by either the federal government or the Wolf-Alport company.
Connection: This connects to our AP government class and our real government because of the many policies and laws that surround it. For starters, the site was originally funded or supported by our own federal government for nuclear research. Also, the Superfund and National Priorities List are examples of laws and organizations that were created by the government to regulate such environmental issues.
National Security #6
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/25/obama-adviser-susan-rice-in-afghanistan/
Summary: our long term security pact may be in jeopardy after Afghan President Hamid Karzai created new demand that involved having US troops withdraw after 2014. He stated that he was not going to sign the agreement with Susan Rice, but the white house stated that he wanted new conditions if he was going to sign it. In order for him to sign this, he requested that the US pulls out after 2014. If their was no signature, there would be no US or NATO troops present in Afghanistan post-2014. Karzai stated that he will not back down from his decision. The US has tried to make him change his mind, but he is sticking to what he demanded. Anither demand is that he wants us to release all Afghani prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Currently, there are 20 prisoners from Afghanistan that are held in the prison on Cuba. He also requested that our forces do not raid other Afghan homes and also try to initiate peace talks with the Taliban. If he were to sign this, we would keep about 8,000 troops in Afghanistan. The rest of this article is about making trips to see Karzai, and try to make him sign this deal.
Reaction: I believe that we need this man to sign. I think that we still need to watch over Afghanistan because I they are still insecure. Having military force will make it safer for us, and those who live in Afghanistan. I believe we could consider giving some prisoners who are in Guantanamo Bay back, but their needs to be some kind of compromise between us and them.
Connection: this relates to AP gov because our country has the duty to take the necessary precautions to protect their citizens. Also, they need to still help Afghanistan rebuild unless we want another war. It is our job as a top country, to help aid other countries and help them up on their feet.
Environment #2- Morgan Estok
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/world/pentagon-releases-strategy-for-arctic.html?ref=earth
Summary: This article talks about the rising tensions between countries, for natural resources, in the warming Arctic. The U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel released the Pentagon's "Arctic Strategy" which outlines how the U.S. will deal with security and and the environment near Alaska and around the Arctic region. The rising global temperatures have began to melt polar ice caps, resulting in a tough competition between countries such as China and Russia for natural resources, such as oil and natural gas. The "Arctic Strategy" outlines the Pentagon's plans to "detect, deter, prevent and defeat threats to the United States" as we maintain sovereignty over Alaska and the region. There has been an increase in interest in the area and that has the potential to create conflict. It's not necessarily the rising temperatures that cause it, but it adds to "global instability, hunger, and poverty" in the region. The Pentagon has also discussed with the Defense Department about plans to adapt the U.S. Naval fleet to the changing climate, to preserve freedom in the polar region.
Reaction: What I really like about the whole "Arctic Strategy" is that our country is obviously being prepared and I think preparedness is an extremely good asset to have. We aren't spending huge mounds of money or over-stepping other countries boundaries, we are simply being ready in our own Alaskan region for any conflict that may arise. It's a very responsible move for the Pentagon because it's obvious that they are aware that countries such as Russia and China may pay no attention to the arctic environment in their attempt to gain resources. We are sort of taking a defensive for the environment and that's what I really like about the strategy.
Connection: This ties in with the good things that Congress does that we don't see. We usually don't hear about them passing legislation, we only hear about them being in a gridlock or not being able to pass anything. This strategy plan may not have come from Congress, but I'm sure pieces of legislation regarding protecting Alaska and the polar regions have come through (and been passed) in Congress. I'm sure there have also been interest groups who have spent time lobbying in DC about the rising climate temperatures and the effects that would have on all factors of involvement, specifically economic.
Summary: This article talks about the rising tensions between countries, for natural resources, in the warming Arctic. The U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel released the Pentagon's "Arctic Strategy" which outlines how the U.S. will deal with security and and the environment near Alaska and around the Arctic region. The rising global temperatures have began to melt polar ice caps, resulting in a tough competition between countries such as China and Russia for natural resources, such as oil and natural gas. The "Arctic Strategy" outlines the Pentagon's plans to "detect, deter, prevent and defeat threats to the United States" as we maintain sovereignty over Alaska and the region. There has been an increase in interest in the area and that has the potential to create conflict. It's not necessarily the rising temperatures that cause it, but it adds to "global instability, hunger, and poverty" in the region. The Pentagon has also discussed with the Defense Department about plans to adapt the U.S. Naval fleet to the changing climate, to preserve freedom in the polar region.
Reaction: What I really like about the whole "Arctic Strategy" is that our country is obviously being prepared and I think preparedness is an extremely good asset to have. We aren't spending huge mounds of money or over-stepping other countries boundaries, we are simply being ready in our own Alaskan region for any conflict that may arise. It's a very responsible move for the Pentagon because it's obvious that they are aware that countries such as Russia and China may pay no attention to the arctic environment in their attempt to gain resources. We are sort of taking a defensive for the environment and that's what I really like about the strategy.
Connection: This ties in with the good things that Congress does that we don't see. We usually don't hear about them passing legislation, we only hear about them being in a gridlock or not being able to pass anything. This strategy plan may not have come from Congress, but I'm sure pieces of legislation regarding protecting Alaska and the polar regions have come through (and been passed) in Congress. I'm sure there have also been interest groups who have spent time lobbying in DC about the rising climate temperatures and the effects that would have on all factors of involvement, specifically economic.
Fredy Stroker Social Welfare #6
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022333849_minumumwagexml.html
Summary: California is pushing to up the minimum wage from $8 to $10 by 2015 and and $12 by 2016. They say that this will would help curb government spending on social services and make jobs more appealing to U.S. born workers, dropping the unemployment rate. Thus, this will drop government spending. Critics believe that this will hurt the U.S, labeling the bill a "Job killer". They believe this bill will increase the unemployment rate and put the state of California's economy at risk.
Reaction: I believe that this bill would benefit California and it's economy. By jobs willing to pay more, people who live off social welfare programs may be willing to get a job. This is because the more money they make would be enough to support their family. By this, the government will not have to spend so much money on social welfare programs. So, employment will go up, and California will have more money to spend.
Connection: This relates to congress and passing bills which we just learned about. Some people don't agree with some bills and don't sign off on them. Some people in California believe that this bill would be detrimental to the state, making it a challenge for the people behind this bill and supporters to get it passed.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022333849_minumumwagexml.html
Summary: California is pushing to up the minimum wage from $8 to $10 by 2015 and and $12 by 2016. They say that this will would help curb government spending on social services and make jobs more appealing to U.S. born workers, dropping the unemployment rate. Thus, this will drop government spending. Critics believe that this will hurt the U.S, labeling the bill a "Job killer". They believe this bill will increase the unemployment rate and put the state of California's economy at risk.
Reaction: I believe that this bill would benefit California and it's economy. By jobs willing to pay more, people who live off social welfare programs may be willing to get a job. This is because the more money they make would be enough to support their family. By this, the government will not have to spend so much money on social welfare programs. So, employment will go up, and California will have more money to spend.
Connection: This relates to congress and passing bills which we just learned about. Some people don't agree with some bills and don't sign off on them. Some people in California believe that this bill would be detrimental to the state, making it a challenge for the people behind this bill and supporters to get it passed.
Carter Himmelman National Security 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/asia/obamas-national-security-adviser-meets-with-karzai.html?_r=0
Obama's visiting Security adviser tells Karzai to sign agreement
Summary: President Obama's national security adviser, Susan E. Rise. He visited her to tell President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Monday. They told him to stop the delay or potentially face the complete and final pullout of American troops by the end of 2014, according to officials. Karzai said he would sign the deal at some point. He said he would sign it when America releases inmates in Guantanamo bay. This has added to crises of the nations. One official from the US said that they have no choice but to plan to pull the troops out by 2014. Which there would be no U.S. or NATO troops in Afghanistan. One official from Afghanistan said that Karzai would sign the bill next April, while they continue to negotiate. America's main goal from this agreement is to get the troops out of Afghanistan. On the other side Karzai wants the inmates out of prison.
Reflection: I think that they should sign this agreement. But there needs to be more negotiating. I think its a great idea that they want to get the troops out. They have been fighting there for a long time and many people have lost there lives. I think we could give back some inmates. We should put the inmates on trial and we give the ones back that are innocent. Or the ones that have not committed big crimes.
Connection: This article connects our class for many reasons. One reason is that Afghanistan is wanting a hadous corpus. They want there prisoners back from us. This is like one of the cases that happened in class about the driver.
National Security Post #2 Kinyon
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/defense-bill-caught-congress-political-divide-20994469
SUMMARY: The Senate has failed to come up with an agreement on the defense spending bill. One of the main disagreements is whether to levy new sanctions against Iran, which Harry Reid opposes. The projected budget is $625 billion. The bill has been quite slow in moving through Congress. Many Republicans are angry that they are not being allowed to offer amendments to the bill. Currently, there are dozens of proposed amendments on the bill. This Congress has been quite ineffective at passing legislation, and the defense bill is just one example of a bill that has faced trouble. Money for personnel, war-fighting equipment, and the conflict and Afghanistan will be jeopardized if a compromise cannot be made. Many Senators are disheartened at the Senate's inability to reach a compromise. John McCain even stated that the bill was at an all time low.
REACTION: It is quite sad that this bill has been stalled on the Senate floor. Defense spending is critical, and it is detrimental to our national defense that a deal on spending cannot be reached. I think that the $625 billion is a fair allocation to the defense budget. It represents as slight increase from the previous year, which is understandable. This bill has already gone through the committees to reach the Senate floor. I am slightly angry that amendments are not allowed to be added to the bill, as amendments are important parts of compromising on a bill. It seems that the debate is stuck. Naturally, the legislative process makes legislating slow in itself, but this seems to be extra slow. I hope that our Senators will be able to compromise on the bill, but I am pessimistic that such a compromise will be reached. There is just too much disagreement on the bill. Perhaps it would be better to wait until the situation in Iran becomes clearer, but it is necessary to pass the bill before the December 9 deadline. Overall, this article has made me less confident in our Congress' ability to come to a solution to pass an important defense bill.
CONNECTION: Currently, we are learning about the legislative process in class. The bill was proposed in the Senate, and has already passed through the appropriate committees and subcommittees. Currently, the Senate is in the process of debating the bill. Since there are so many steps in the process, and so many places where the bill can die, it is quite hard to pass a bill in Congress. This has led to a slower legislative process filled with conflict and arguments. That is what we have seen in the debate over the defense bill. Overall, the defense bill shows the slowness that is created by the structure of the legislative process.
SUMMARY: The Senate has failed to come up with an agreement on the defense spending bill. One of the main disagreements is whether to levy new sanctions against Iran, which Harry Reid opposes. The projected budget is $625 billion. The bill has been quite slow in moving through Congress. Many Republicans are angry that they are not being allowed to offer amendments to the bill. Currently, there are dozens of proposed amendments on the bill. This Congress has been quite ineffective at passing legislation, and the defense bill is just one example of a bill that has faced trouble. Money for personnel, war-fighting equipment, and the conflict and Afghanistan will be jeopardized if a compromise cannot be made. Many Senators are disheartened at the Senate's inability to reach a compromise. John McCain even stated that the bill was at an all time low.
REACTION: It is quite sad that this bill has been stalled on the Senate floor. Defense spending is critical, and it is detrimental to our national defense that a deal on spending cannot be reached. I think that the $625 billion is a fair allocation to the defense budget. It represents as slight increase from the previous year, which is understandable. This bill has already gone through the committees to reach the Senate floor. I am slightly angry that amendments are not allowed to be added to the bill, as amendments are important parts of compromising on a bill. It seems that the debate is stuck. Naturally, the legislative process makes legislating slow in itself, but this seems to be extra slow. I hope that our Senators will be able to compromise on the bill, but I am pessimistic that such a compromise will be reached. There is just too much disagreement on the bill. Perhaps it would be better to wait until the situation in Iran becomes clearer, but it is necessary to pass the bill before the December 9 deadline. Overall, this article has made me less confident in our Congress' ability to come to a solution to pass an important defense bill.
CONNECTION: Currently, we are learning about the legislative process in class. The bill was proposed in the Senate, and has already passed through the appropriate committees and subcommittees. Currently, the Senate is in the process of debating the bill. Since there are so many steps in the process, and so many places where the bill can die, it is quite hard to pass a bill in Congress. This has led to a slower legislative process filled with conflict and arguments. That is what we have seen in the debate over the defense bill. Overall, the defense bill shows the slowness that is created by the structure of the legislative process.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Maya D - Environment 2
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/forests-un-climate-talks-warsaw
Summary- This article goes over the recent decision ,ads my the US, UK, and Norway to put over $280 million into rebuilding forests and ending deforestation at the United Nations Climate Change Talks. The money for this seemingly new project is coming from old projects including the budget of the REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. This is viewed badly by some who say that it is taking money away from the original project while others say that it is beneficiary to both projects because the REDD+ project will finally be started after 6 years of being in the works. The rest of the money will be out up by the countries themselves and the World Bank. Some advocates of the environment argue that this idea was wrongly put into place. They say that we should focus more on creating clean energy instead of trying to grow back the trees that we've already cut down and that this projects need a lot more money than it was given to actually be successful.
Reaction- This article surprised me because I filigreed our government would never give that much money towards protecting the environment. My thoughts were proven right when I read further to see that compared to the UK's $120million input and Norway's input of $135million our contribution if $25million was weak. I'm not sure how this bill we be put into effect because of the land usage in America. I do agree, though, with the group that said that we should've focused more on clean energy. By putting our money towards clean energy we would've reaped the same benefits without having to cut the amount of land for agriculture.
Connection- This connects to what we've been learning because certain members of congress can have their own committees to be in or lead. In this case the Secretary of State, John Kerry, had the environment as his committee. This allowed him to voice his opinions at the United Nations Climate Change Talk and come back with $25 million to spend and a new program to employ.
Summary- This article goes over the recent decision ,ads my the US, UK, and Norway to put over $280 million into rebuilding forests and ending deforestation at the United Nations Climate Change Talks. The money for this seemingly new project is coming from old projects including the budget of the REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. This is viewed badly by some who say that it is taking money away from the original project while others say that it is beneficiary to both projects because the REDD+ project will finally be started after 6 years of being in the works. The rest of the money will be out up by the countries themselves and the World Bank. Some advocates of the environment argue that this idea was wrongly put into place. They say that we should focus more on creating clean energy instead of trying to grow back the trees that we've already cut down and that this projects need a lot more money than it was given to actually be successful.
Reaction- This article surprised me because I filigreed our government would never give that much money towards protecting the environment. My thoughts were proven right when I read further to see that compared to the UK's $120million input and Norway's input of $135million our contribution if $25million was weak. I'm not sure how this bill we be put into effect because of the land usage in America. I do agree, though, with the group that said that we should've focused more on clean energy. By putting our money towards clean energy we would've reaped the same benefits without having to cut the amount of land for agriculture.
Connection- This connects to what we've been learning because certain members of congress can have their own committees to be in or lead. In this case the Secretary of State, John Kerry, had the environment as his committee. This allowed him to voice his opinions at the United Nations Climate Change Talk and come back with $25 million to spend and a new program to employ.
Alexis Tansey - Social Welfare #2
http://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/
Summary: The federal government funds many welfare programs. There are about 72 programs that benefit individuals while the rest benefit communities and neighborhoods. While wages are taxed, welfare benefits are not. Someone would have to make roughly $21 an hour to do better than they would do on welfare in New York. This is more than most teachers make at entry-level. The reforms and benefits of welfare vary from state to state. For many recipients, welfare pays substantially more than an entry-level job. Surveys show that people on welfare are actively looking for work. However, if you pay someone more not to work than to work, they are probably going to choose to not work. Such generous welfare benefits may actually be hurting the recipients in the long run. The author believes that a policy preference of work over welfare should be put into action and that the benefits of welfare should be reduced.
Reaction: I agree with the author of this article. People should not just be handed money like this. I think that the government should help people in need, but they need to help themselves as well. It is not fair for government to just hand out money while some people are actually working for the same amount. I agree that a policy preference of work over welfare should be created.
Connection:We have discussed the differences between political ideologies and how divided government can create gridlock. Welfare and other entitlements are long term problems but our leaders will not get together and compromise on solutions. Some people, like this author, think that welfare benefits should be reduced. On the other hand, others disagree.
Summary: The federal government funds many welfare programs. There are about 72 programs that benefit individuals while the rest benefit communities and neighborhoods. While wages are taxed, welfare benefits are not. Someone would have to make roughly $21 an hour to do better than they would do on welfare in New York. This is more than most teachers make at entry-level. The reforms and benefits of welfare vary from state to state. For many recipients, welfare pays substantially more than an entry-level job. Surveys show that people on welfare are actively looking for work. However, if you pay someone more not to work than to work, they are probably going to choose to not work. Such generous welfare benefits may actually be hurting the recipients in the long run. The author believes that a policy preference of work over welfare should be put into action and that the benefits of welfare should be reduced.
Reaction: I agree with the author of this article. People should not just be handed money like this. I think that the government should help people in need, but they need to help themselves as well. It is not fair for government to just hand out money while some people are actually working for the same amount. I agree that a policy preference of work over welfare should be created.
Connection:We have discussed the differences between political ideologies and how divided government can create gridlock. Welfare and other entitlements are long term problems but our leaders will not get together and compromise on solutions. Some people, like this author, think that welfare benefits should be reduced. On the other hand, others disagree.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Katherine Baer: Environment #2
Summary: According to the International Joint Commission, only half of drugs and contaminants in sewage are removed by treatment plants. The commission discovered traces of antibiotics and chemicals in the Great Lakes. According to the article, 4.8 billion gallons of treated water is poured into the Great Lake basin daily - which could be potentially contaminated. Six different chemicals and antibiotics have been found regularly in treated water and investigators discovered that treatment plants have low levels of removal for these types of contaminants. Shockingly, these same contaminants have been found in drinking water at very low levels. The International Joint Commission is not sure how the contaminated water will affect humans, but they have seen an increase in algae growth and slower reaction time in fish. New technology is currently being tested to promote better sewage treatment.
Reaction: I was surprised that drugs and chemicals were found in a fresh water source like the Great Lakes. I generally assume that the water I drink is clean, and don't think twice before drinking it. I definitely take this for granted and don't necessarily realize how the system could be flawed and could affect my health. Clearly the drugs and chemicals that were found in drinking water were at minute levels, but I still find this concerning. I understand that no system is perfect, but I still think that actions should be taken to prevent contaminants from getting in our water and the water in which aquatic organisms live. I am glad to hear that new technology is being tested to prevent this problem from getting out of hand.
Connection: The article said that there are currently no federal regulations of pharmaceuticals in waste or drinking water. This sounds like something an environmental interest group or PAC would be interested in discussing with government officials. I assume that environmentalists would not be pleased by this, and would expect an interest group to take action to create a policy that would prohibit pharmaceuticals in waste and drinking water. From what I have learned in AP Gov, an environmental interest group could bring the issue to the attention of government officials through lobbying, litigating, electioneering, and going public. Also, the media may play a role in promoting this issue and causing it to be seen by more Americans and take a spot on the policy agenda.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=only-half-of-drugs-removed-by-sewage-treatment
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Fredy Stroker - Social Welfare #5
http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Main-Stories-c-2013-10-21-85525.113122-Prisoners-still-receiving-social-welfare-benefits-audit-finds.html
Summary: An audit conducted for 5 counties in the state of New York showed that hundreds of jail member receiving inappropriate welfare benefits and employment insurance while still in jail. From January 1st, 2011 to March 1st of 2013, inmates had used 236,000 in various social welfare programs and 324,000 in state unemployment insurance. In New York, the Department of Social Services (Dss) conduct tests or deem who is eligible for social welfare. They argue it's hard deeming eligibility once they are incarcerate because inmates eligibility changes frequently because they are awaiting trial or serving short court-order sentences.
Reaction: I found this very surprising to me. My questions would be Of what happens of inmates with family's that are on welfare? Can they still be on welfare but not them? I am also astonished on how the DSS can mess these tests up to deem the eligibility for social welfare. I don't think it's that hard to know whether someone is an inmate or not. I believe this is wrong because this is a waste of tax payer money. This welfare money is going to someone already incarcerated in a jail that is also paid for by the peoples taxes. This is why we are in such bad national debt.
Connection: This connects to polling things that we've learned in class. In polling, people fill out questionnaires, and they do as well from the DSS to see whether or not they are deemed eligible for social programs. The DSS conducts these tests and sends them out just like people who work for polls.
Weinstein Social Welfare #1
Summary: This article describes how the welfare system has evolved overtime, and focuses mainly on single women who receive this financial support. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, he assured the American people that he would end this system, and throughout President Ronald Reagan’s campaign, the candidate repeatedly mentioned what was known as the “welfare queen”, or one who manipulates the welfare system to get more money. For example, a person may file for this assistance using different identities in order to be granted twice the benefits. However, as decades pass, fewer families are relying on cash and vouchers. Also, there is a higher rate of employment among single women who are less educated. According to the story, in 1997, nearly 3.94 million families were given direct financial assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In 2012, however, only about 1.72 million families in the nation were recipients this same aid. Also, in 2011, about 62% of single mothers (aged 20-49) with a high school degrees were employed. This is down from 76% in 2000, but that was before the recession. The recipients of TANF, in most states, can only collect its money for five years, and the program requires all those who receive its benefits to do twenty to thirty hours of “work-related activities” including job hunting or community service. While single moms with little education today are less likely to need constant aid, it is increasingly difficult for them to find a steady job and receive a satisfactory paycheck. According to the US Census Bureau, 41% of households with children under the age of 18 being raised by less educated single women were living in poverty in 2011. While a low income job is unfavorable, it is, according to the article, better than living off of meager welfare checks. However, TANF has been successful in helping poverty-stricken people get back on their feet.
Reaction: I fully support the TANF program. The work requirements help to ensure that those who are in need are doing everything they can to turn their lives around, but it still gives them support. I am impressed that there are fewer families relying on some form of welfare, but I am happy that aid still available. My hope is that by benefiting from TANF, the children of single mothers will realize the importance of getting a good education which leads to strong workers for future generations. The lower employment rate of women in this situation shows the effects of the recession, but it gives me hope that the percentage will continue to rise.
Connection: We have discussed the standpoints of the two major political parties on a variety of issues including government aid. I was surprised to read that President Clinton, a Democrat, was against the welfare program, but after reading into it more it seems that he was in favor of it becoming a second option for those in need, not a way of life. President Reagan opposed the system and described the “welfare queen”. Oftentimes Republican’s feel that there should be work requirements for the recipients of government aid. It is impossible to please everyone on every issue, but TANF seems to appeal to both parties by requiring those who receive welfare to work in some way, but still provide aid to the desperate.
Alex Connor Enviroment
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/business/economy/unavoidable-answer-to-problem-of-climate-change.html?ref=earth
Unavoidable Answer for the Problem of Climate Change
Summarize: To summarize the article that I read about the environment, it is basically saying that an unavoidable answer to the climate change and limited fossil fuels that we have left is, nuclear power. Nuclear power is greater than for example solar and wind power because it is always reliable and will be there. Instead of burning fossils and emitting CO2 into the air, nuclear energy is an alternative energy that works. Wind is not always around and the sun doesn't always shine. Globally, not as many people that have been around radioactivity have died, and only a few have gotten cancer from it. This shows the saftey that nuclear energy can secure along with benefiting our environment. Japan is one of the front runners in using nuclear energy because they are trying to cut back on reliance on fossil fuels and create a better air quality that prevents or slows climate change.
Reaction: I would have never guessed that nuclear energy was such a big importance. I had also not really linked our burning of fossil fuels to the rapid change in climate and air quality. If we use more nuclear power- along with solar and wind, we could defiantly cut back on how much CO2 is emitted into the air. Overall I think it is a good idea to become more reliant on a different more effective energy source to help us weasel our way out of fossil fuels that are not only damaging our environment but growing extinct.
Connection: My connection to this is that globally, our nations are getting together to help solve issues and figure out better solutions to important problems. Without the nations leaders getting together, we would all have no clue what was going on with each other in this world that we live in. This is sort of like in times of war when the nations would get together to create treaties and make allies and solve issues. Except this is a war against the environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)