Build Back Better vs. Joe (Manchin)

 

Democrats' $3.5 trillion turned $2 trillion social spending package, Build Back Better, appears to be dead after Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said that he wouldn't vote for it on Fox News. His exact remarks were rather definitive: "I just can not possibly vote for this piece of legislation. I just can't. I've  tried everything humanly possible. I just can't get there," and caused backlash from the White House and the Progressive wing of his party. 

Because there are currently 50 Democratic senators, and 50 senators are needed to vote for the bill in order for it to pass, Joe Manchin's "no" would mean that the bill can not pass in its current form. No Republicans support the bill. Manchin's objections include concerns that the bill would contribute to inflation and add to national debt; despite his statements on Fox, it is likely that he and other Democrats will continue working to reach a compromise. According to CNN, he would prefer the bill to go through the committee process before trying to move through the Senate via the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. 

Based on face value alone, Manchin's resistance to BBB seems to highlight the issue of polarization within the Democratic party. However, after looking into the factors surrounding Manchin's decision, I'm a bit confused as to why he would give Fox News such frustrated remarks. After all, Manchin supports key provisions of the bill, such as provisions expanding ObamaCare, the $500B allocated to alleviating climate change, and the $200B for universal pre-K (Vox). He has also been working with the White House and Progressive caucuses for months, reaching compromises and altering the bill a significant amount from its original form. In addition, the plan can already be characterized as centrist (which is interesting for a multi-trillion social spending bill; polarization is that bad), as it does not include the liberal agenda items of Medicare-for-All, or decriminalized border crossings. You'd think Manchin and Biden would have a better relationship. One of the main reasons I found for Manchin's opposition to the bill was the general funding approach; Manchin has expressed his support for longer-lasting programs that would cost less, but rather than focusing on a few top priorities, Biden has decreased the length of time each program would be funded (NYT). I agree with what Manchin is advocating for, as getting a few stable and popular programs in place allows Democrats to accomplish something, and also lays the groundwork for future progress. As caucuses such has the New Democratic Coalition of the House express their support (NYT) for this approach, I have hope for the bill's future.

But why did Manchin say what he said on Fox? Maybe it was just an outburst. However, it's not incomprehensible that his actions were a political move. Progressives are now very angry at him; Rep. Ilhan Omar called his "excuses" "bullshit," and other key Progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jayapal (chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus) have expressed their frustrations. Left-wing criticism benefits Manchin politically, as it bolsters his image as a moderate. In addition, in his home state of West Virginia where Trump won 69% of the vote, it benefits Manchin to appear as the one man standing up to Biden (NYT).

Questions: 

Why do you think Manchin currently does not support the bill? Did he vent on Fox for the same reasons?

How has the Biden Administration been doing so far? What other policies have they passed, and how has their "productivity" been compared to the first years of previous administrations?

Through what lenses have media outlets covered Manchin's statement? Notice any patterns?

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/briefing/joe-manchin-opposition-build-back-better.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics/biden-build-back-better-manchin/index.html

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22848508/covid-pandemic-testing-vaccines-manchin-build-back-better

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/19/statement-from-press-secretary-jen-psaki-4/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/opinion/biden-moderate-democrats.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/20/joe-manchin-isnt-only-obstacle-build-back-better/

Biden Outlines New Steps To Combat Covid Through Winter Months

On Thursday, Dec 2nd, President Joe Biden announced a new strategy to combat the potential “winter surge” of Covid-19 while not enacting quarantines such as those
we have seen before. Biden’s approach emphasizes expanding vacations to the remaining Americans who have resisted getting vaccinated, while simultaneously
providing booster shots to newly eligible young adults. Furthermore, Biden is changing rules on international travel to require more recent testing results upon US
entry. Biden has made it clear that although Covid is an issue, he is prioritizing the nation’s economic recovery stating that his plan “‘pulls no punches in the
fight against Covid-19’”, and that it should “‘unite us’”.

Cases of the South African Omicron variant are inevitably going to hit the US, however, Biden’s agenda was edited in hopes to give the administration enough

time to plan the best possible way to combat the damage. Thursday however was not the first time Biden announced a new plan. The media, having previously

recorded such events, had also taken note of continued resistance against getting vaccinations and boosters, which in turn lowered his public approval rating.

Biden was speaking on the new plan, but the next day officials had already confirmed the first recorded case of the Omicron variant in the US hitting our home

state of California, another case shortly discovered in Minnesota. With the restriction now being one day before US entry for international immigration, cases

from foreign entry are predicted to lower, however, travel is not the only way a virus spreads.

Biden is fighting a two-front war with both new emerging Covid variants as well as the economic collapse caused by the first wave of Covid. In times of such

challenge keeping an approval rating high is more than difficult but Biden is already better off than Trump in that regard. With the new travel restriction which

seems necessary, I am unsure of what Biden plans to do regarding the damaged economic status of the United States. With the media hungry for more

stories after the very media-heavy presidency of Donald Trump, Biden’s term will certainly be affected by the media to a similar degree. The Biden

administration also spoke about increasing vaccination rates for children, however, these mandates remain under constitutional question. While under

section 361 of the Public Health Service Act which allows the Department of Health and Human Services the ability to take measures to prevent the

introduction, spread, and transmission of disease in-between states, other federal laws allow vaccine exemptions for employees based on religious beliefs.

President Biden is up against a formidable force of the media, the public, and Covid-19; Only time will tell if his calculations will play in the favor of both his

administration and the American people.

1. Do you believe that children should be mandated to get the vaccine? Is this constitutional?

2. Do you think that Biden deserves the criticism he receives from the decisions he has made regarding the economic and physical health of the US?

3. What measures should be taken to combat the spread of Covid 19 / Omicron variant? Are public institutions doing enough?

Levi Kikuchi

Sources:

Biden outlines new steps to combat Covid through winter months

Current constitutional issues related to vaccine mandates

Republicans Really, Really Dislike Biden. But It’s Not Just About Him.

US Military Launches Investigation After Possible Civilian Casualties In Syria Strike Targetting Al Qaida Leader

Drone technology is nothing new to the US Military, however, drone-related casualties due to poorly planned attacks are something more recent. With the ongoing battle against Al Qaeda
and ISIS, drones were used to remotely attack aerially while keeping American pilots safe from anti-aircraft weaponry and capture. However, with the advancements in technology, have
the higher-ups in the military become too carefree with the way they use this new powerful equipment?

In September of this year, another drone strike was carried out in northwestern Syria in an attempt to assassinate a senior al Qaeda leader. The acknowledgment of potential civilian

casualties and the investigation on such circumstances was led by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in which the Pentagon admitted to there being several civilian casualties. This

information which became public in late November was the first time that US Central Command had acknowledged that these previously undisclosed airstrikes had claimed the lives

of innocent Syrian citizens including young women and children. Austin said he believes “leaders in this department should be held to account for high standards of conduct and

leadership, however, if this was the case was there a need for the drone to attack? Or perhaps intel was not enough for those behind the monitor to feel satisfied with their work.

Although the evidence has come to light, the Defense Department has yet to hold anyone accountable for the deaths of innocent civilians since August 29th of 2021, in which 10 Afghan

civilians were lost. Although the investigation found that significant errors were made when carrying out the planned mission, there were no legal violations of law including the law of war.

Austin closed his interview claiming that the RAND Corporation focuses on civilian casualties in Syria is helping undergo a security review of those behind these unsolicited drone strikes.

It seems as though the government brought this to light amidst other events such as Covid to distract from the innocent lives they took. The Pentagon’s involvement with such crimes

against humanity not charging anybody with the killings is surely something that cannot be morally correct, however, if those who instigated such drone strikes are allegedly protected by the law.

1. Although not illegal, do you think it was right for the US to send these unsolicited drones in an attempt to take out an al Qaeda leader while knowing civilians were in the way of harm?

2. Does the apparent lack of knowledge from the older military officials contribute or justify the blunt force used in an attempt to eliminate a senior al Qaeda leader?

3. Do you believe drone strikes are beneficial in war? What do you think makes them necessary or unnecessary?

Levi Kikuchi

Sources:

US military launches investigation after possible civilian casualties in Syria strike targeting al Qaeda leader

MQ-9 Reaper > Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Bob Dole, Giant of the Senate and 1996 Republican Presidential Nominee, Dead

Bob Dole, a Republican presidential hopeful passed away this Sunday, 12/5 caused by an ongoing battle with advanced lung cancer. President Biden came forth to speak on the unfortunate passing of Dole regarding him as an “American statesman like few in our history...among the greatest of the generation. And to me, he was also a friend whom I could look to for trusted guidance”. Dole was a war hero who was critically wounded in battle which resulted in numerous health problems. Previously surviving prostate cancer and a leg infection, the seemingly indestructible Dole’s passing were unexpected, to say the least. Dole was the Senator of Kansas for 27 years and had two stints as the Senate majority leader, although he is perhaps best known for being the unsuccessful opposition to Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1996, which was his third attempt at the white house. Dole was remembered as a social professional that could always break congressional tension with his humor. As a former soldier himself, Dole also advocated for the nation's veterans serving as co-chair of a 2007 presidential commission that investigated Walter Reed Medical Center, which specializes in treating wounded Navy Seals.

Bob Dole^

In his youth, Dole was born into the Great Depression. Following the coming of WWII, he enlisted and wrote his memoir: “One Soldier’s Story”. Dole’s humanitarian quality is best represented in where he suffered a major injury while carrying a fellow soldier to safety. The next 39 months were spent in and out of hospitals which ultimately earned him two purple stars, and two bronze stars, along with an oak leaf cluster for his outstanding service. His other honors include receiving the Congressional Gold Medal which is the highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress.

Personally, I believe that a man such as Bob Dole who was forged by his nationalistic, and humanitarian past created a man who was able to seek out good for his country. As Dole has heavily contributed to the states such as being the Republican leader of the senate for 11 years, his passing sure has left a hole in congress. With the passing of older political figures who have lived through the larger conflicts of our past, the decision-making and morals of modern politicians bring questions. Dole’s was a role model of what an “ideal” American was made to be, and his lasting impact as a good man in congress has left a positive influence even after his passing. Surely this golden retriever of an example

1. Do you think the next Kansas Senator will be as qualified as Dole?

2. What problems or benefits do you see coming from Dole’s passing?

3. What makes a senator candidate appealing in your eyes and why?

Levi Kikuchi

Sources:

Bob Dole, giant of the Senate and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, dies

Dole Institute - Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics

US Senate: Robert J. Dole: A Featured Biography

 

CDC recommends Pfizer booster shots for Americans as young as 16

 Exciting news today as the FDA just approved Phfizer’s booster shot for 16-17 year olds. This is just months after the booster was approved for those 18 and older. As new variants have been on the rise with the Omicron variant being the most recent, many have been eager to receive their booster shots. Several states are still seeing waves of people who have been infected with the Delta variant. The new Omicron variant will make hospitals have even larger strains which is why now more than ever it is crucial for people to first become fully vaccinated and then get their booster when they can. Because the Omicron variant in particular is highly mutated, getting the booster will help strengthen our protection against this virus and it’s most complex strains. 

As of today, a little more than half of teens in the US are fully vaccinated. However, only about 31% are eligible to receive their boosters due to the requirement that they be vaccinated at least six months prior. Moderna also has a booster available, however, it is only approved for those who are 18 and older. Interestingly enough, the Moderna booster is slightly different from the initial vaccination series whereas both the Pfizer booster and original vacancies are the same. In the case of the Moderna booster, it is only half of the original dose from the first two shots. In the case of the Phfizer vaccine, both the booster and the original shots are the same formula. The side-effects of the booster shots are the same as the original vaccine series. Common side effects include but are not limited to headaches, fatigue, muscle swelling at the injection site, or chills. 

Personally, I was extremely excited to hear that the booster shot was approved for 16 and 17 year olds and I will be getting mine as soon as I can. I was fortunate enough to get fully vaccinated 6 months ago so hopefully I can get my booster soon. 

Questions: 

1. Are you planning on getting the booster? Are you hesitant about getting the booster? 

2. Do you think other students will get the booster?

3. When do you think the booster will be approved for those 12 and up? 

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-pfizer-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-age-16/

Biden will sign executive order setting 2050 net-zero emissions target for federal government

 It was announced this week that current President Joe Biden will sign an executive order to set the federal emissions target to net-zero by the year 2050. It is no secret that climate change and global warming is progressing at disturbingly quick rates. In fact, 2021 is expected to be ranked top 7 in the hottest year in history. In order for humans to survive and the Earth as we know it to stay the way it is, climate change and global warming cannot continue to progress. Moreover, in recent years, climate change has become a pressing issue in the political agenda and one President Biden is taking very seriously, which is why he is passing this executive order. 

According to this news article by CNN, President Biden is planning on achieving his goal by buying clean energy, electric vehicles, and overall making all federal government buildings more energy efficient. Hitting net-zero emissions by 2050 is a very daunting task, but a necessary one. Even so, the executive order issues more provisional goals including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by the year 2030. In fact, on April 23, 2021, Biden gave a speech at a virtual climate summit that 40 other world leaders attended where he stated just this. His executive order is just confirming and officially sets his goals into motion. Because this is happening at the federal level, there is hope that states will follow the president’s lead by setting their own set of emission reduction plans. To be clear, President Biden is only issuing these regulations for the federal government. It is up to the states to proceed on making their own set of regulations if they choose. 

In my opinion, I think President Biden’s goals are ambitious, but necessary. As stated before, climate change is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed and regulated immediately before further damage is done. Because climate change progresses so quickly, it is crucial that the President sets high standards for what the government can achieve. This being said, in order for more change to be done, the states should implement their own regulations in the near future. 

Questions: 

1. What do you think of President Biden’s executive order? Agree? Disagree? Too ambitious? 

2. Do you think states should have their own set of regulations? If they did, how do you think the general public would react?

Source: //www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/biden-executive-order-net-zero-government-2050-climate/index.html

Omicron Update: Pfizer Claims "Third Time's The Charm" on Omicron

 

    While Omicron has yet to run rampant like its predecessor Delta has, It seems the vaccine industry has been quick to offer up some positive test results from their labs. Earlier today, American pharmaceutical company Pfizer and German biotechnology company BioNTech released a statement declaring their laboratory study results on the newest strain. They observed that the third dose, or "booster shot", of their vaccine (BNT162b2) practically neutralized the Omicron variant. Those with only two doses were found to exhibit a resistance to Omicron, however they advise that it may still be people's best interests to get boosted. Albert Bourla, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer, states that, "Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19".

    Of course these findings are all based on initial lab results and datasets. Development of a  new, Omicron-specific, vaccine is to be signaled should the strain prove out of the control of the current procedures. If need be, Pfizer and BioNTech promise a shipping of March 2022.

Buisnesswire: Pfizer/BioNTech Update

New York Times: Pfizer's Booster

Discussion:

The constant evolution of the vaccine(biotech + pharmaceutical)  industry and their products alongside the virus. What that means for less developed countries. 

The global mass-distribution of  vaccines developed in extremely short periods of time. Can they be trusted?  

Roe v. Wade's future is in doubt after historic arguments at Supreme Court

     I’m sure most of you know the court case Roe v. Wade but, just in case, here’s a quick summary: in 1973, SCOTUS ruled that the United States Constitution protects a pregnant woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion for the first trimester of the pregnancy and struck down anti-abortion laws in states like Texas. With abortion being such a hot debate, this was a controversial decision. Last Wednesday, the abortion debate returned to the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, with a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. As it stands, the Supreme Court has a six-justice conservative, an anti-abortion supermajority that could put the 1973 case at risk of being overturned.

    Republicans have held a majority in the Supreme Court in recent decades, yet Roe v. Wade is just now at risk of being overturned. Why? Previous Republican justices-- John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter-- weren’t anti-abortion; they voted to uphold Roe. During his term, President Trump exercised his power of Judicial Appointment and, with the help of a Republican majority in the Senate, appointed three conservative justices to the court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, replacing two defenders of Roe v. Wade (Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Claiming he’d “only put up nominees who had the enthusiastic support of the Federalist Society” (who “tends to favor judges who take conservative stances on abortion rights and other social issues”).

With these kinds of appointments-- for political stances rather than for fair judgment-- some have begun to question the “legitimacy” of SCOTUS. Among them, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asks, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” (NYT). Recent polling also shows a decline in recent SCOTUS approval (more on that in the NYT article if you want to check some of the numbers), but controversial subjects up for debate are bound to make that happen.

The decision for this case is expected by summer.

Questions:

1. How likely do you think it is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned?

2. It’s hard (or near impossible) to find a balance that will satisfy everyone on the topic of abortion- do you think we’ll continue to see challenges to Roe v. Wade in the future?

3. Do you think a politically-charged SCOTUS is good or bad? Regardless, do you think it can ever be truly objective?

4. “President Biden has appointed a commission to study potential changes to the court, and it is expected to issue a report this month assessing options like expanding its size or imposing term limits on the justices” (NYT). What are your thoughts on those two possibilities?

Sources:

Critical Moment for Roe, and the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy

Roe v. Wade: How Republicans got so close to overturning it

Roe v. Wade's future is in doubt after historic arguments at Supreme Court

To Panic or Not to Panic? A New Strain of Covid Appears

 

New Covid just dropped.

On November 26th, The World Health Organization (WHO)  released a statement identifying a new strain of the Covid virus identified in Botswana and South Africa. Dubbed "Omicron" following the Greek letter naming conventions, this variation was declared a "variant of concern" in accordance to its high mutation and unpredictable response against circulated vaccines.  

This new scare has once again prompted shutdowns worldwide, many countries banning flights from South Africa, while some countries closing off all foreign travel. As of now, the nature of Omicron is still being looked into with caution. Results so far have been concerning but ultimately inconclusive. The only positive case in the U.S. experienced short-term mild symptoms, however, they were fully vaccinated beforehand. The lethality and transmissibility is still to be determined, but even so, stay safe and mask up. 

If you plan to vacation this winter, expect cancellations and be extra careful, as viruses thrive in the cold. 

Discussion:

1. How does the appearance of new strains affect the administration(or lack thereof) of vaccines?

2. How does one explain to a child how Santa operates amidst a global pandemic of a highly transmissive virus? (or the global pandemic's effect on the growing youth)

New York Times Article

WHO Statement