Friday, August 31, 2018

Trump Administration proposes to let states decide coal regulation.

Summary: Made in accordance to the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) was an Obama-era legislation that aimed to scale back carbon emission from power plants by 32% from their 2005 levels by 2030 (The Economist). The plan has yet to come into effect due to legal challenges by coal states, but on August 21, 2018, the Trump administration introduced a new legislation, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to replace the CPP before it even comes into effect. The ACE essentially allows states to decide their own emission reduction targets -- according to the EPA, this plan would increase coal use by as much as 9.5% by 2035 (The Economist). Most reductions in noxious gas emissions imposed by the new plan is considerably less ambitious. For example, according to The Economist, whereas the CPP is would reduce sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide by more than 20%, ACE would only reduce these gases by 1-2%. Further analysis by The Economist predicts that like the CPP, ACE would likely face legal challenges; it is unlikely for the new proposal to be enacted before Trump’s term ends.

Opinion: Just from the statistics, I find ACE a disturbing replacement to the CPP. The Economist explains that the market itself is beginning to rely less on coal and more on Natural Gas (a fuel cheaper, cleaner, and more readily available due to fracking -- which is the extraction of gas from underground rock). Renewable energy is becoming less expensive and more viable as an alternative, and mining of coal itself has become more efficient due to automation (therefore needing less workers). The market can handle less coal, there’s less demand for coal and coal workers, so why adopt ACE? Even if coal production was increased, I feel like it wouldn’t create that many more jobs because of automation -- if the government really wanted to preserve jobs for the “little guy,” they should focus on AI and machinery regulation which can replace human workers -- just saying.

Questions:
--Discuss the Affordable Clean Energy rule. Is it something that worries you?
--Why do you think the Trump administration made this proposal? Who are they trying to appeal to? --Discuss the politics behind climate change.
--Would allowing more coal output generate a significant amount of additional jobs? Do your own research and discuss.
--Do you agree with the Economist’s analysis that the lessening use of coal is more due to market than government intervention? Why or why not?


Sources:
Posted by at 2 comments:

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Jacksonville Shooting

Image result for guns
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Summary:
24-year-old Maryland gamer David Katz opened fire and then killed himself during the Madden video gaming tournament in Jacksonville, Florida on August 26, 2018. According to CNN, 2 were dead and 10 were left injured from the shooting. Reports from CNN say that Katz had lost a game earlier in the day and that he has had a history of mental illness -- factors that may have contributed to the shooting. According to the divorce records of Katz’s parents, Katz had been undergoing psychiatric treatment since the age of 12. He had obtained a 9mm handgun and a .45-caliber handgun a month ago in Maryland legally -- despite his history, he had successfully undergone all background checks and trainings necessary to purchase a gun. Federal law mandates that those deemed “mentally incompetent” in court or who were committed to mental health institutions against their will (for 30 days+) are disqualified from obtaining legal firearm, but it doesn’t include precautions against patients with a history of psychological issues. (Update 8/29/18 : According to the Washington Post, Katz, although he has been hospitalized twice, none have exceeded the 30 days which would've prohibited him from obtaining a gun).
Analysis:
Dominating recent headlines, gun control and gun violence remains a pertinent issue of modern politics. Much of the debate is geared towards who should be able to obtain a gun and who shouldn’t. In general, democratic, urban states tend to have tighter gun control while Republican, more rural states have looser laws. In states with tighter laws such as California, they conduct universal background checks in order to close the federal gun show loophole (which essentially allows private sellers and sellers at gun shows the option of not conducting background checks) -- a universal background check essentially means that even private sellers have to conduct background checks. Other forms of gun control include waiting periods meant to cool down the impulsive or mandatory training. On the federal level, moderate gun control legislation have been introduced, but the NRA, probably America’s most powerful lobbyist organization, have continually influenced politicians to shoot those bills down in defense of the second amendment (the right to own guns).


Opinion:
The shooter in this particular event obtained his guns via all legal means so it seems that even with gun control, accidents can still happen. Even if we enforced a stricter set of criteria for mental health, there will still be cases where there’s undiagnosed cases of mental instability. While I am not saying we shouldn’t pay more attention to mass shootings, mass shootings only comprise of less than 2 percent of all gun related deaths, yet it seems to dominate headlines the most -- more than gun suicides or accidental misfires. I feel like the public should place more focus on child access prevention laws or help to the mentally ill so that there’s less suicide and less gun-related accidents.


Discussion questions:
Is the focus on mental illness in the gun control debate justified? Would placing more gun restrictions on the mentally ill be effective, or should the focus be directed elsewhere?
How else should politicians address gun control? What measures should be in place?
What is your reaction to this event? Is it more of an accident or is it a signal to strengthen gun control?
What can we do to diminish the power of the NRA? Should we? Why or why not?
What measures could’ve been placed in Maryland specifically to prevent this tragedy?
Sources

Vox youtube videos:
How powerful is the NRA?

Posted by at 1 comment:

An update on DACA -- Is DACA headed towards the Supreme Court?


Image result for DACA
Courtesy of Wikimedia
Summary/ Analysis:
DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals, is an Obama-era executive order that defers, for two years, deportation of illegal immigrants who were brought across the border as children. The status is renewable and at the same time, provides these immigrants with social security (SSN) numbers so that they can obtain work permits and driver's licenses.
DACA being an executive order* means that it’s not a bill -- it has the force of law but it can be directly issued by the president and bypass congress. Back then, Obama, a democratic president, faced a Republican dominated congress that tended not to favor his policies, so in order to bypass congressional procedure, Obama issued an executive order. Bills are harder to pass; bills require a majority vote in both Senate and House in addition to the president’s approval, but on the flip side, if a bill does get passed, it’s equally hard to repeal a law, (repealing a bill would require the same process as passing a bill).
The executive order is easier for the president to issue, but it can also be just as easily repealed by the next president. When DACA had first been implemented, Republicans argued that the executive order was an overstep of presidential boundaries. The Trump administration decided to end the program on March 5th 2018, but the courts of California, District of Columbia, and New York has blocked the action, claiming that in accordance to the Administrative Procedure Act, which dictates that for the repeal of any substantial program, agencies must publish proposed changes in the Federal Register, give the public a chance to provide feedback, and then give an adequate explanation of why the changes are not “arbitrary” or “capricious.” Court judges found the Department of Homeland Security’s justification inadequate, further arguing that rescinding DACA would negatively affect the hundreds of thousands of people already enrolled in the program.

The Update:
While California and New York federal judges had only ordered the Trump administration to continue renewing existing DACA statuses, DC federal court judge John Bates in early August went a step further and ordered the Trump administration to reopen the program entirely, to start accepting new applicants. Currently, the DACA case is again being heard in Texas by the conservative district judge Andrew Hanen, a judge known as an “immigration hawk” according to Vox. Ten states are presenting arguments that DACA is unconstitutional, but as of now, according to CNN, Hanen said that he would only consider the portion of the case that pertains to ending DACA immediately -- not its constitutionality.

With potentially conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court may have to weigh in; If the case is heard now, there would likely be a 4-4 split along party lines as the Supreme Court is currently down a judge. Trump’s pick, Judge Brett Kavanaugh will begin his Senate hearing/confirmation process on September 4th.


Connection:
Apart from obvious legislative checks and balance connections, DACA is a POLICY adopted by the executive branch during the Obama era that is a part of the larger POLITICS surrounding immigration and his struggles against a Republican dominated congress. While the democrats tend to favor a more empathetic approach, arguing that these immigrants are escaping from horrid environments and that DACA recipients especially, who didn’t have much of a choice in coming to the United States, should receive some sort of special exception, the Republicans embrace the view that the immigration laws in place ought to be followed, we should give job priority to Americans, and that it’s just not feasible to let everyone who wants to come to America do so.
Opinion:
I think this topic is quite interesting and shows the complexity of governmental controversies. I see the arguments on both sides so it’s hard for me to decisively side with one side or another. While I do agree that DACA recipients are here often under no fault of their own, I also think that illegal immigration should be deterred in some form (maybe not remove DACA, but at least strengthen border security) -- I feel like it’s unfair to immigrants further away from America who had to endure the wait and who went through the process legally.

Discussion question:
Since DACA is an executive order, does the Trump administration have the right to repeal DACA? Why or why not? Should they repeal DACA?
Was Obama justified in issuing DACA? Discuss the idea of an executive order.

Sources:
More on deportation:


Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)