Andrew Yang’s campaign to give $1000 to 10 families monthly sparks nation

Andrew Yang giving positive gesture at the start of the Democratic presidential debate in Houston, Texas, September 12, 2019

Original Article

Andrew Yang intends to give each American adult $1,000 every month in all-inclusive fundamental pay, as an approach to balance work misfortune from automation. The pledge now says he will give 1000$ to 10 families off of a lottery system. The first-run through presidential up-and-comer proposes paying for the month to month dispersions, in huge part, by executing another 10 % esteem included expense (VAT) on merchandise and services. A VAT assessment resembles a business charge, yet it's gathered differently. Normally, for a business charge, when you purchase an item,  the tax will be collected. Yet, under a value-added tax, the tax is actually collected in stages along the production process. He stated, “In America today, everything revolves around the all-mighty dollar,” Yang said. “It’s time to trust ourselves more than our politicians. That’s why I’m going to do something unprecedented tonight. My campaign will now give a Freedom Dividend of $1,000 a month for an entire year to 10 American families.” 

With a UBI, which Yang calls a “freedom dividend” no American would need to fear they couldn’t cover their basic human needs. The presidential candidate says this is because when we operate from fear, we tend to make poor decisions and there is typically a cascading effect on our lives that impacts our families, networks, and society at large. Yang plans to use the UBI after being elected president to give back to the families. A UBI would liberate Americans to move from shortage to wealth mode, which would empower more individuals to go out on a limb and take part in a more prominent, progressively broad vision for their future. Yang's opportunity profit would give Americans more prominent office to leave mutually dependent connections, proficient or something else, and work as the CEO or business person of their own lives

  However some experts state, it can be a violation of campaign finance laws. The UB I works where monthly money instalments would go out to each American beyond 18 years old. They'd get the same dollar amount regardless where they live and how much, if anything, they gain by working. The administration charges a 10% worth included assessment merchandise and enterprises to pay for the program, just as raising expenses on high workers and polluters, and discovering investment funds somewhere else, as indicated by Yang's site. Paying $1,000 per month to each American would cost at any rate $2 trillion per year and the weight would be conveyed by everybody, not simply the wealthy.

I think putting 1000$ to families is both right and wrong. It can start maximizing on generating income from the people and businesses that benefit from society most. Once the 10% value-added tax will be imposed it will focus on persons and businesses making a killing in the society and this will help raise the funds that will be needed to fund the 1000$ to families that will be randomly selected. To help rectify wage stagnation, poverty and to respond to rising inequality. Yang wages to help rectify the poverty and the rich gap by empowering anyone that will be selected to get the funds to help him/her be able to do anything with the funds that the government will offer and hence reduce poverty levels and solve the inequality issue. However, slightly higher prices of goods, since the 10% will be imposed on goods and services, then this means there will be an increase in price to be able to compensate on the lost cash to taxation and this will eventually lead to prices rocketing a bit higher. Also, mass job losses as technology will be greatly involved. When taxation is high industries tend to minimize wage bills by doing automation, this will definitely lead to job loss as there will be mass layoffs in various companies as they will resort to automation.

Questions-Every eligible UBI recipient, regardless of location, would receive $1,000 a month, would it be right or wrong to make adjustments to the amount based on where you live?

 Would you say giving out 1000$ per month out of campaign funds and handing it out to individuals violate the personal use prohibition?

Trump administration raids military construction projects for border wall

Original Article

Lindsey Graham said he was confident that money being taken from projects in his state would be restocked

Both the president and the congress can declare a national crisis at whatever point they see fit. In spite of the extreme sounding mark, no comprehensively settled upon "crisis" is really required. Donald Trump announced the crisis not long ago to verify assets for the border wall in the wake of neglecting to induce Congress to dispense cash for its development a similar wall he at first guaranteed Mexico would pay for. Just 12 Republican legislators questioned the move in a Senate floor vote in March, with the majority of the GOP meeting staying with the president.GOP authorities are accusing Democrats after the Trump organization defunded military activities in their states. Democrats have another battleground in their battle against President Donald Trump's wall along the southern border. After the Defense Department divulged a rundown of undertakings it would put on uncertain hold to give $3.6 billion to the divider, Democrats have concentrated on what the nation is surrendering. Republicans who bolstered a crisis presentation on the U.S.- Mexico border are finding the expense of remaining with President Donald Trump: million dollars in government subsidizes redirected away from planned military construction projects in their states. 

Esper established that the utilization of the military development assets was important to help American powers sent toward the southern border with Mexico under the national crisis that Trump announced in mid-February. The formal assurance permits Trump, under the government code directing the military, to tap the assets appropriated for different purposes without close down from Congress. 

I do not think taking funds from the states to be able to build the wall is right. These states have needs and their residents need to be protected. Taking funds from these states to fund the building of the wall, denies these states the ability to provide for their residents. The projects in these states will likely stall and the people in these states will be heavily affected because they will not benefit from the projects that were to be laid out. This will make these states to lag behind in terms of development because of the need to build the wall between the US and Mexico. This is an issue because when the funds are diverted, the people in these states will not get to enjoy the benefits that they expected to enjoy. Most of the projects that would have been done this year, would be pushed to next year thereby affecting the lives of the people in these states. This is not the right move.

Question- What qualifies as a “national government? Do presidents regular declare national emergencies? What can a president do with the emergency powers? Would you call this case an emergency power?

All The Key Moments From The Third Democratic Presidential Debate

The original article can be found here.
You can watch the debate here.

The Third Democratic Presidential Debate took place on Sept. 12.

 

The third democratic presidential debate is upon us, taking place at Texas Southern University in Houston. I only watched the first hour or so, where the debate was mostly comprised of universal health care discussions — and I have quite a bit of criticism.

As the candidates introduced themselves and began discussing issues, one of their main themes was that they were all on the same team — the democrats. Now, since this is a competition for the presidential election, there is obviously going to be some competition. But following Julián Castro and Joe Biden's petty verbal scuffle, Pete Buttigieg voiced his opinions.

"This is why national debates are becoming unwatchable. This reminds everybody of what they cannot stand about Washington. Scoring points against each other, poking at each other," Buttigieg said.

Castro responded smugly and condescendingly, "Yeah that's called the democratic primary election. That's called an election, you know? This is what we're here for. It's an election."

Same team right? Even though they all have different plans, they're fighting for the same thing: universal health care. Why get into an argument and throw cheap shots at each other? The exchange that Castro had with Biden and then Buttigieg after made him immediately unlikable to me. One of the reasons for the continuing divide in the United States is the continued divide in politicians, even those who are on the same side. If they can't set some kind of example and show some respect for each other without being condescending, how are the American people who support these candidates supposed to react?



Two major themes that the candidates' seemed to support appeared to contradict each other: uniting the nation and hating Donald Trump. I get it. Trump's time in office has been questionable (to put it very lightly), and his past and path to presidency was littered with racist comments and his immaturity shown by his tweets also reflected some poor judgment. But nearly half of the voting population was in support of him.

Take Kamala Harris for example. A couple of her opening statements disregarded the issue at hand, and instead took shots at Trump's presidency and him as a person, which appeared to me as a cheap way to gain applause from the audience. Even Buttigieg said that those who vote for Trump are turning the other cheek to racism. That's a quick and easy way to widen the divide between democrats and republicans.

I don't support or endorse Trump. I think he's very unfit for the presidency and politics in general. But a good portion of the country doesn't think so. And if your motto as a candidate is to unite the nation while simultaneously pissing off half the country by bashing their favorable candidate, it just doesn't seem consistent. Rather than discussing everything Trump has done wrong and talking about how bad of a person he is, focus on the future. This is a progressive generation. If you really want to unite the American citizens, then respect all people. You don't unite a country by saying that the voters of the other party are racist — you focus on what you plan on doing and how you're the best candidate.

Judging from last election's debates, these have the potential to be brutal. I hate seeing these candidates avoid questions altogether to throw in some rehearsed statement that doesn't feel genuine, nor do I like seeing politicians being pitted against each other and hurling insults rather than discussing issues. Buttigieg and a few other candidates seem to recognize this, but there's still a way to go before respect is built between democrats and republicans.

Bernie Sanders voter pandering: the Democrat strategy

Since 2016, as the Democratic field has expanded, Bernie Sanders has maintained a significant fund-raising advantage among college student in Iowa

Here is the original piece

In the tight race for Democratic nomination, one nominee has turned to more unconventional tactics to stay in the race. Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, who lost at the Iowa caucus in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, is back for the 2020 race with fervor. Currently, in the race for Democratic nomination, "currently jockeying with Elizabeth Warren for second place, behind Joe Biden, in the race for Democratic nomination.

Since losing the caucus last year against Hillary, Sanders has still maintained the strong lead he had with young voters particularly with those in Iowa that are college age. However, this year Sanders is being much more proactive about trying to get his demographic to vote, and at every stop, during his tailgate tour, he reminded his audience that even with their more progressive views, nothing meaningful would happen if they did not go and vote.

This targetting of a more younger demographic will be very beneficial to Bernie's campaign, as nowadays there seems to be a tendency with younger generations to have more moderate to liberal political philosophies. However, even with this new liberal generation rising up, there is a much larger problem that may prevent their more liberal ideologies from being represented in government. Bernie's criticisms of the government target those that are considered elites, harping on that the economic and political systems in place in our country tend to favor elites. While his criticism is not untrue, and not unfounded, his message merely echoes the sense of powerlessness felt by those he targets with his message. Young voters mark one of the first generations where children are making less money than their parents, and many young voters may feel disenfranchised with the idea of voting because they feel the system they are trying to change is rigged against them. As Sanders himself says, "What we're really fighting against is apathy."

Though Bernie's message about wanting to rework the country's politcal and economic systems rings very clear, it seems that his campaign message emphasizing the unfairness of the system may once again backfire on his young voters. However, with a large percent of voters 65 and over voting more conservatively, Democrats seem to have no choice but to pander more and more to younger generations in order to gain their votes.

What are your thoughts on this new era of politcal pandering to younger generations? Do you think that the call to action will inspire more apathy from millenials and Gen Z voters or do you think this reality check is just what nominees need to secure that last vote.

Trump Administration Plans to Ban Flavored E-Cigarettes

The Trump Administration discusses a flavored e-cigarette ban with the F.D.A commissioner and the health and human services secretary

The original article can be found here.

In light of recent mysterious lung diseases connected to the use of e-cigarettes, the Trump Administration said on Sept. 11 that it would ban the majority of flavored e-cigarettes. One of the biggest concerns is the rise in teenage vaping across the nation.

There has been a rise in vaping related health issues recently, with nearly 500 reported cases and potentially 6 deaths. The majority of these cases involve those over 30 years of age and that use vaping products that contain THC, a psychoactive component in marijuana.

The CDC has strongly urged everyone to not vape, and smokers to consult a doctor instead of switching to e-cigarettes. Major vaping companies such as Juul are new, as is vaping. There is not much research as to the effects of vaping nicotine or THC, and other chemicals found in the aerosol based liquids also have unknown effects.

Various flavors of Juul e-cigarettes in a store in Manhattan.

Secretary of the health and human services Alex M. Azar II said that the FDA is planning to get rid of flavored e-cigarette nicotine products including mint and menthol, which many vape companies did not formerly consider flavors. There have been accusations that vaping companies have produced flavored vapes to deliberately attract teenagers. Although all companies deny these claims, Juul, who recently took flavored pods off of the shelves, still sold their flavored options online for some time.

Michigan has become the first state to ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. New York, Massachusetts and California are also considering following suit and banning flavors. This poses the question of state regulated commerce. There has not been much backlash towards individual states banning flavored e-cigarettes, however, it may affect the shipment and transport of vaping products across states. One suggested interpretation of the Commerce Clause suggests that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce, and the state ban could potentially violate that (I'm not too sure).

Regardless of individual states' actions, the Trump Administration is looking to enforce this ban on a national level. Vaping and nicotine products are without a doubt a rising harmful trend. Although they were originally marketed as safer alternatives to smoking cigarettes, the demographic has quickly shifted from hopeful smokers to teenagers.

However, there has been some backlash to the Trump Administration's decisions regarding vaping. Various conservative organizations as well as vaping companies have described the Trump Administration's ban on flavored products misguided, and even went as far as to say they are following "the far left anti-business extremists." It's no surprise that these companies would hurl these claims to protect their businesses and write off the health risks associated with their products.

Aside from the vaping industry's concerns about the new potential ban, there is widespread support for the Trump Administration's new proposed ban. The effectiveness, however, may be questionable. With the ban on flavored products, many consumers switched over to menthol and mint rather than quitting nicotine altogether. But this proposed ban will address menthol and flavored products.

What do you think of this ban? Do you think that the individual states have the rights to enforce their own bans and regulations on vaping products? What do you think the outcome of the Trump Administration's ban might be?

Huawei Has a Plan to Help End Its War With Trump

Huawei CEO Ren Zhengfei hosts a rare media interview.

The original news article can be found here.

In this opinion piece, journalist Thomas L. Friedman shares his experience interviewing Huawei Chief Executive Officer Ren Zhengfei and his thoughts on the U.S. Chinese trade war.

Huawei is one of the largest technology companies in China, producing more smartphones than Apple and trailing just behind Samsung. The company's products resemble those of Apple in both design and name. But the United States has its biggest concerns in the potential espionage of the Chinese government through Huawei products.

It's no secret that China has a suspect history with the media and internet in their country. With major search engines and social media applications blocked, China is mostly dominated by WeChat, a sort of all-in-one application that lets you interact with others, pay for products, and even call a ride. The Chinese search engine, Baidu, along with Weibo, a microblogging website, is heavily filtered.

For example, searching keywords such as "Tiananmen Square" returns no results, which is China's futile method of pretending the June 4th massacre never took place. Despite China's attempts of filtering its past along with their questionable government, the citizens are still aware. The use of VPNs and other firewall bypassing software allows the people to access the plethora of information available on the web. All of the people know that the Tiananmen Square protests were a real thing, but the government still tries to deny it.

Why does the Trump Administration not want to do business with China? Well there are multiple reasons. In the United States, there are no American producing 5G networks. But there are multiple companies internationally that have these services, one of the big ones being Huawei. Huawei has also been previously affiliated with American tech companies such as Microsoft and Samsung, but their relations have been cut off amidst the recent trade war. The Trump Administration is fearful of Huawei setting up their networks in the United States and allowing China to spy on our conversations (similar to what the NSA does?) and potentially turn off our electricity during a war (?).

But in a recent (and also rare) interview, Ren stated that he was willing to work with the United States and namely the Trump Administration to set up these networks and even allow American companies to rewrite the software to ensure that there is no sketchy espionage happening from China. They want to reach some kind of consensus, but are weary because of President Trump's irrational tendencies. Since President Trump seems to treat foreign affairs as a win or lose situation, China and Huawei don't see any kind of win-win situation coming out of this trade war.

It seems that Huawei is offering a solution to benefit the United States with a new and improved 5G network, while also ensuring information and cybersecurity. Why would they do that? They most likely want to reestablish relations with the American companies, who weren't actually given a reason as to why they couldn't do business with Huawei.

Aside from me throwing a little bit of shade in the way of the Trump Administration, it does seem that they have our security in high priority, which is in our best interest. Could they be taking it a little too far, like an overprotective father on his daughter's prom night? Maybe. But as of now, all we can do is wait for some kind of resolution for this situation.

The enduring effects of Trump's foreign policy on national security

A C.I.A. source with access to President Vladimir V. Putin was removed from Russia in 2017.

(This article can be located here)

The New York Times is a an American Newspaper with international acclaim that covers stories in many different fields like politics, economics, and tech

During President Trump's presidency, the United States lost one of its most important assets against Russia, a CIA informant that was able to closely monitor Vladimir Putin's actions and sent information over to America. Around the time Trump's presidency started the CIA was forced to withdraw the agent "in part" due to Trump's closed door meetings with Putin and mishandling of delicate intelligence.

This extraction has opened a whole other avenue of discussion. Why do we have a president that handles politically sensitive information with ham-hands and is able to frolic unchecked on social media at all times? Trump's use of social media has caused or much embarrassment to himself and also resulted in the spread of hate and misinformation.

In my opinion, if Trump's actions with foreign policy and social media have resulted in an integral source being withdrawn from a country with which we have shakey relations, we need to seriously reconsider who we have let become our president. After all, it was because of this source we know definitively that Russia had interfered in our 2016 elections. (And before people try to ask about the validity of the information, the CIA ordered a full review of the informant's record, so do with that what you will).

As we have learned in class our government is plagued by voter misrepresentation as a result of low voter turnout or simply just uneducated voting. So it is no surprise that we currently have a president with an approval rating of less that 50%. Additionally, I feel the other branches of government ought to punish or even just call Trump out on his potentially dangerous actions. After all the Constitution does have the purpose of "ensu[ring] domestic tranquility" and "provi[ding] for the common defense" of our nation. A president that potentially endangered CIA informants goes against both those values.

What's your opinion about this whole situation coming back into light?

Teens Doing Good for the World

Image

Article

      This little boy has a genetic defect that reduces his motor function. He is unable to walk and because of their financial situation his family was unable to provide a customized wheelchair for him as it would cost a lot out of pocket since their insurance would not cover it. His father reached out to the local high school's robotics team and asked if they would build this 2 year old a car. They happily said yes and got to work. They created this chair from a Power Wheels car. They replaced the seat with a bike seat and added a seat belt to keep him safe. Removing the fancy electronics, they replaced it with a simple joystick so the boy would be able to move around easier. For extra safety, they added pool noodles around the base, a very common technique seen at actual robotics competitions to prevent damage. The financial savings from this vehicle was very beneficial to the family. Seeing the joy on the boy's face as he drove around made their hard work and effort 100% worth it according to the robotics team. 

Read more about teens doing good for the world here: Link

Leaving a Mark - Thoughts from an Art Bomber

( This isn’t about Gov or Econ, or anything newsworthy, but I wanted to put something personal on here to hopefully be entertaining and add some levity. Let me know in the comments what you think.)

I started Origami Bombing about five years ago, after I folded a few figures as Christmas gifts for some friends. I had never done origami before that point. I started practicing the figures on bits of recycled paper as a way of memorizing them. I’d dig old hall passes out of my middle school recycling bins and fold them into a variety of animals, flowers, and boxes. 

The problem arose when I couldn’t find the heart to throw them away. Yes, they were disposable, and yes, I could make a thousand more, but at the same time, it seemed wrong to take something I created and toss it in the trash. I’m sentimental that way. So I just left them. Some teachers found this habit annoying, as it tended to confuse the next student to use my desk. Others found it as an entertaining break in their monotonous day. 

The ones in the first picture are from a notepad I found in the lounge at the dorm I stayed at last summer. All the papers were perfect squares and I couldn’t resist. The third is from Mr. Ratto’s daily calendar on his desk. This practice could be considered littering, and most of the figures end up in the trash at the end of the day anyway. Why do I do something so temporary? In a way, everything is temporary. The lifespan of your average origami crane is fairly short, but short life is better than no life at all. There’s a real joy in creating something, even something so simple, and leaving it behind.

The Crochet Bomb is on Hot Metal Bridge in Pittsburgh that might technically be vandalism.  I left it behind on my last day in the city. The city changed me, so I decided to change it, even in the tiniest way. A fair exchange. Maybe that’s why I do the origami, as a way of getting even with the classroom that morphs my mind a little bit every day. Or It might be the narcissist in me experimenting with playing god on a minuscule scale. If I’m being generous, though, it’s more about whimsy than anything else. I do it because it’s fun, it’s harmless, and some people find it amusing. 

So if you find some folded paper on your desk, it was probably me. What do you leave behind? 

Indian Missing Spacecraft Found

Image

Article

      The unmanned Indian spacecraft Vikram had lost contact with Earth over 36 hours ago. It had traveled millions of kilometers but 2.1 km away from the surface of the moon, they lost contact. They were unsure of whether the craft had actually landed on the moon or if it had floated away. When news came in this morning, it seems the craft had landed on the South Pole side of the moon but they are still unsure of what condition it is in. However because it did land, India is now the fourth country to have landed an spacecraft on the moon. The mission was for the craft to explore the terrain of the moon for a few weeks because in one of India's previous missions, Chandrayaan-1 (meaning moon craft in Sanskrit), there was ice spotted on the South Pole of the moon. They were going to measure the ice chunks and see if it was viable for life. If the Indian Space Research Organization is able to work the spacecraft from Earth, this may be the beginning to seeing if there is life possible outside of our planet. 

Top of the Democratic Agenda for the 2020 Election: Climate Change

Image

Article
Image2

        Climate change is happening. It is all across the globe and many people have finally realized the impacts due to it. For the 2020 election, many possible Democratic candidates have put climate change as one of their top priorities. Some of these ideas include a pollution fee proposed by Senator Kamala Harris to help mitigate the issue or simply a budget working towards solving this issue such as Bernie Sander's proposal of 16 trillion dollars. The Green New Deal, a liberal proposal to solve climate change, has a goal of reaching a net zero of carbon emissions in a decade. Obviously this is a very high goal and seemingly unrealistic but many activists say "the bolder the action, the better."

         Though scientists have confirmed climate change and the harrowing impacts of it on the flora and fauna of the world, many are still on the fence of whether or not it should be supported. In fact, only 44% of the people who acknowledge climate change think there should be something done about it. I believe that climate change should be a main priority in the next decade because we need to help reduce the damage it has already caused to this planet. The carbon tax is one of the best ways to help companies reduce their emissions and it can hugely benefit the air quality as well as mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Amazon to Release Movie about CIA Torture.

Based on this Article : https://reason.com/2019/08/23/can-adam-driver-make-americans-care-about-cia-torture-again/

“Can Adam Driver Make Americans Care About CIA Torture Again?” - SCOTT SHACKFORD | 8.23.2019 2:35 PM, Reason

(Reason is a libertarian magazine that leans toward free market and “small government” opinions. However, this post is about entertainment media as a means of social influence, a subject matter with a fairly neutral stance in terms of partisanship.)

Amazon Prime recently dropped a trailer for a new movie, The Report, which will become available in November. (Trailer Here). The film details the efforts of one Senate Committee to uncover and, well, report the brutal interrogation and other prisoner abuses by the CIA after the September 11th attacks.  These methods were used in the early 2000s during the Bush administration and ended during the Obama Administration, but afterward, the Agency and much of the Administration did everything in their power to keep evidence and knowledge of these practices under wraps. It wasn’t until 2014 that the “enhanced interrogation” came to light. (If you’d like, the full report can be found here, pages 11-27 give a good outline of the document. Fair warning, it does get graphic.) 

Five years is not a very long time in terms of “historical Drama.” The movie industry can be hesitant to touch fresh wounds, as the longer you wait, the fewer people are left alive to remember the subject matter and be angry at a misrepresentation of it. From a less cynical view, it can be easier to gather objective information about a subject as more time goes on, as the heat of the moment fades and people get the benefit of hindsight. 

The debate about what is “necessary” in times of crisis is forever-raging. The same arguments always arise, whether it’s dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian population or starting an invasion or burning a village to the ground. “It’s them or us, it’s a total war, a few destroyed lives are worth the price if it protects everyone else.” And on the opposite side: “Nothing justifies this kind of brutality, it doesn’t work, it’s needless, civilians shouldn’t be punished for the actions of a few.” One is more “realist,” (and criticized as cynical) and the other is more idealist (and criticized as naive). But, people will defend both with equal vehemence. 

So why would Amazon risk a public backlash by releasing this film, which criticizes both the CIA and the Obama Administration for their cover-up? Maybe it’s to force people to remember. It’s not just the brutality that’s disconcerting here, it’s the secrecy. How much is the executive branch capable of hiding? How much of their action is outside of our control? And how do we trust people with such low regard for human life that they were willing to commit these atrocities? These questions are too important to be forgotten, especially now, when the world of politics is more chaotic than ever, and the executive branch seems to want to test the extent of its power. 

Words in a report can have an effect, but watching history play out, that creates real understanding. Films are not made to be educational (normally), they’re meant to tell truths that are impossible to find in facts. Films like these, no matter the motivation for making them, force the viewers to think, and to confront dark and ugly things in a way that appeals to their empathy and stays with them long after the credits roll.

Abortion - Public Views and Court Decisions.

Based on this Article - https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/29/u-s-public-continues-to-favor-legal-abortion-oppose-overturning-roe-v-wade/

U.S. Public Continues to Favor Legal Abortion, Oppose Overturning Roe v. Wade

(The Pew Research center is a “fact tank” that takes in data on various political issues and makes objective analyses).

A few weeks ago, Planned Parenthood - a family planning organization that provides free services like STI testing, PAP smears and other cancer screenings, contraceptives, consultations, as well as abortion - withdrew from Title X. Title X is a federal funding program for reproductive health organizations, and they recently added a new provision to their law: “None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” (Statutes and Regulations, HHS Department). 

This decision has faced criticism: Why leave a critical source of funding for all the other services solely for abortion’s sake? And practically, separating abortion into a privately funded service might have been a smarter move. But morally, creating that separation would send the message that abortion is not an acceptable part of women’s health care. 

Here's the argument: If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she should not have to be. No matter when, how, or why she became pregnant, she should make the decision to continue because she is the only person who will have to carry it to completion. That is why abortion is just as integral to reproductive health as any other service.  (Feel free to discuss, I’ll happily go into more detail in the comments.) 

But a large minority (38%) think abortion should be illegal, at least in most cases. In 1973, Roe v. Wade established abortion as a legal procedure for women who wished to terminate a pregnancy. Many interest groups, for various religious or moral reasons, opposed this decision, and some states, such as Alabama in recent months, have taken measures to make abortion as inaccessible as possible.

A principal worry of the anti-federalists was that the supreme court “ will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states.” (Brutus I). Here we see a supreme court decision that cleary does not sit will with individual states, but does with the majority of the nation. At a federal level, those decisions protect minorities within a single state. Some consider a violation of State’s rights, while others see it as a necessary precaution against tyranny of the majority. 

Should it be possible for a blanket decision to be made by such a small body (9 judges)? Should it be possible for a single state to subvert the laws of a whole nation? 

Tell me your design. 

Joe Biden Suggests that Details Are Unimportant in the Trump Era

Image

Article

         It has recently been shown that Joe Biden has not always been honest with his stories. He had been telling people for years that he went to Afghanistan to pin a Silver Star on the Navy captain but after researching, Washington Post journalists uncovered that he was bluffing. When questioned about his actions, Biden simply blamed his mishap on following Trump's behavior, quoting "Details are irrelevant". However with the campaigns already starting for the next election, and Biden hoping to spend another four years in the White House, this time as President, he must be careful with his words, especially since the reason he is in the running is to not let Trump get re-elected. According to the article, Trump has misquoted at least 12,000 facts, therefore Trump's tendency to create fake news should be what Democrats are going after. 

         In my opinion, the future candidates who are standing against Trump should contradict his most public views. Because Trump puts many of his statements on Twitter, everyone has access to the message he is trying to get across. Which means it is also very accessible for journalists to evaluate if what he is saying is true. If Democrats want to win the White House back they should be transparent with the public because when incidents like this are revealed, it creates a level of mistrust towards to the candidate, giving them a slimmer chance to actually be elected.

Questions:

1.  Do you think Joe Biden has ruined his chances of becoming the Democratic Party's main candidate through this statement and what it stands for?

2.  In your opinion, should there be a strictly enforced law that holds political figures to the truth so they cannot manipulate stories and incidents? What would be the terms of the law?

3. Should the public be more receptive to the news to hold political figures to the truth? If so, how could we amplify the news so it reaches everyone? 

Universal Basic Income, What is it, and Why do we Care?

(Andrew Yang at the DNC meeting in San Francisco, 8/23/19, Credit: JOSH EDELSON/AFP/Getty Images)

https://ktla.com/2019/09/02/stockton-tests-universal-basic-income/

Based on this Article: “Stockton Experiments With Universal Basic Income — and Idea Backed by Pres. Candidate Andrew Yang”

According to Madison, the protection of individual liberty inherently involves the “protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property,“ and “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” How does a nation protect individualism while also ensuring that everyone gets a fair share in its resources? To answer this first requires a new perspective. Unequal distribution does not only come from unequal faculties. There are many culprits to point to, ranging from centuries-long cycles of oppression to the simple fact that complete equality is an impossible ideal. However, whatever the causes of unequal distribution, the fact remains that a great many people in this nation do not have enough to survive, while others have more than they could use in multiple lifetimes. 

One proposal is to give everyone a baseline income of $500 a month. For people on or below the poverty line, it acts as a buffer in the event of a job loss or a medical emergency or other issues impossible to plan for. It’s one of Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang’s main talking points. This system was introduced in Stockton, a Central California city, last February. 

There are two main “schools of thought” when it comes to Universal Basic Income. The first and more conservative one is this: giving people “handouts” will discourage them from being productive. The more progressive line is that having a basic income will give people the economic independence to not only hold down a job but also be consumers. The moral argument here is every human being is entitled to a tolerable standard of living that at present can only be achieved at a certain income. 

The system in Stockton seems to be working; no one has quit their jobs to raise a family on $500 a month. The article linked provides specific interviews of people benefiting under this system, but there is one thing that made its implementation smoother: It’s funded by private donors, not taxpayers. Any system on the federal level would have to be funded by taxpayers, which brings in the stickier situation of people not wanting to pay more taxes, and other people not wanting to take money from other social welfare programs. A plan like this would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. So everyone has to ask themselves a simple question.

What do we prioritize?

Bolton in a China Shop

Article:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/opinions/trump-bolton-afghanistan-security-concerns-vinograd/index.html

Image from Business Insider's Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Vinograd's depiction and analysis of President Trump's action are generally consistent with his administration's track record; chaos and arrogance. John Bolton, Trump's National Security Advisor, has actually been left out of important military and strategy meetings for Middle Eastern policy because he disagrees with the boss man. Bolton has shown that he prefers a military solution to a political one, while Trump's foreign policy outlook is unclear and changes with the amount of time he plays golf with oil executives. Coupled with Trump's lack of experience in the military, ignoring what had become a key senior councillor to the President in earlier administrations means erratic military policy from the White House. Trump is clearly violating political norms and could create a Trump-centric echo chamber in Washington.

Prompts:

1. How could ignoring Bolton be a good idea?
2. What is to come of Trump's behavior and collaboration with his staff?

Hurricane Dorian and American Inter-Governmental Relations

Article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/us/hurricane-dorian.html

Hurricane Dorian is, at the time of writing, a category 5 storm that is ravaging the Bahamas with maximum sustained winds of 180 mph and a possible route at mainland US, starting with Florida and moving up the East Coast, although current forecasts explain it is too early to call. Dorian only glanced past Puerto Rico, but still gave the US territory a lot of fright, as the residual impacts of Hurricane Maria are still fresh in many Puerto Ricans' minds. My cited NYT article reported that a regional suicide prevention center that saw an extraordinary increase in demand, from 8 calls a day to 282.

The US Virgin Islands were even less fortunate. A PBS News Hour explained that Dorian caused widespread damage, leading to power outages in schools, public facilities, and some neighborhoods. In addition, in this NYT article, Stacey Plaskett, the Virgin Islands’ delegate to Congress, said that "Although this is not a large hurricane, we’re in such a compromised position as it is."

Finally, Florida, 12 counties in Georgia, and North and South Carolinas have declared states of emergency and began evacuation plans for certain regions. While this tragedy is heartbreaking, it's also important to evaluate and criticize the key features and flaws in the American government for better future governance.

It's important to note that the establishment of the concept of federalism and states' right and obligation of management is still in play, and, in this case, particularly useful. Local newspaper Orlando Sentinel reports that Florida governor Ron DeSantis collaborated with the state's Emergency Operations Center and suspended tolls to help citizens evacuate, which supports active federalism's efficacy; having top-down leaders in each region is better for faster, more well-informed decisions and could be the difference between life and death.

What is perhaps more important, however, is the relationship, exposed by natural disasters, that US territories have with the mainland "legitimate" America. Puerto Rico, as a US commonwealth, and the US Virgin Islands, as a territory, seem to be very far removed from what "America" actually is, and their conditions reflect that; in fact, reports from NBC, Reuters, and other sources found that Puerto Rico received less and slower aid after Maria and other disasters. While the Founding Fathers did establish a mechanism to acquire land, which was put into use for the Northwest Territory, it was eventually to convert the land into states for the Union.

However, despite numerous referendums in Puerto Rico for statehood and reasons for why it would be beneficial to both sides, like this analysis that the economy would dramatically improve, America remains 50 states strong. Many US territories are stuck in limbo, and policy is creating politics in US thinking; these little islands don't deserve aid or special consideration or representation (oh the irony) because they aren't states.

Prompts:

1. What are other examples of good and bad federalism?
2. Is federalism a necessary evil?
3. What do you think about Puerto Rican statehood?

Potential for a 2020 Recession

Article can be found here.

In part due to Trump's trade war, many sources believe that 2020 could mark the beginning of another recession. However, another factor that may be contributing is the simple fact that there hasn't been a recession in a while. The idea is that if the stock market is good for too long than investors remove their money, predicting a recession and thus cause one. Either way, a recession prior the the presidential election would almost guarantee that Trump is not reelected as such a negative mark would leave him extremely open to criticism. Notably, this is another example of non-governmental systems wielding power over government. The stock market is not described or mandated by the Constitution or its amendments, and yet, its fluctuations exercise extreme power over who is in office as a dip can be attributed to the current president or members of Congress.

Federal Court Bars Barr's Bar on Migrant Bail

Article:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-07-03/federal-judge-blocks-barrs-order-to-keep-asylum-seekers-detained-indefinitely

Hansen's article is extremely interesting; it discusses the Trump administration's recent attempts to achieve policy goals and change the American immigration system, as well as the reactions to them. Attorney General William Barr issued an order mid-April that would deny bond hearings for asylum seekers and keep many in dangerous detention centers for the entire process of their case, and further, allowed migrants that had made bail to be arrested and detained again by ICE agents, because that makes a whole lot of sense.

Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington blocked Barr's order, citing "a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to assess the necessity of their detention." The full decision can be found here.

This event, in my opinion, showcases a few things. The executive branch trying to unilaterally change the country's immigration policy and system displays a dangerous lack of regard for political norms, like finding support in Congress or the courts, and for representative policymaking, as Barr and many more weren't elected by the people. Additionally, this case relates to this week's class focus; the checks and balances within the federal government still function and prevented what was to be a border policy disaster. While the executive branch can somewhat broadly enforce domestic and foreign policy and push political agenda forward, the power of the federal courts can regulate unconstitutional acts by the Congress and the executive branch.

At the same time, however, much of the government is controlled by one political party that has largely common interests, and, as discussed in class, this political control reinforces itself through preemptive policies, like gerrymandering and voter suppression. Because of this, Barr, and Trump, still control the Justice Department, which is set to appeal Judge Pechman's decision in order to push forward conservative immigration policy.

Prompts:

1. Do the original checks and balances make a difference? Why or why not?
2. The Republicans did win multiple state and federal elections through actual voters. Does this justify the government's actions and subsequent problems? Why or why not? If so, who, or what, is at fault?
3. What can be done to remedy the current immigration, and, broader political problem?

Other sources:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/flores-migrant-family-detention.html
• businessinsider.com/trumps-executive-power-weakens-conservative-agenda-democrat-2019-8

The Problem with the Second Amendment

Article can be found here.

In this piece from Balloon Juice, Tom Levenson makes the claim that the second amendment right to bear arms conflicts with the first amendment rights to freedom of assembly and religion. I find this claim to be somewhat valid, as many of the recent mass shootings can have their motive attributed to people attacking others on the basis of religion and other first amendment rights. These attacks then conflict with one's first amendment rights by scaring people away from freedom of practice and speech.

Qualifying Window for 2020 Democratic Candidates to Close Tonight

Article can be found here.

So far, the Democratic 2020 race has been infamous for the sheer quantity of candidates - 21 to be exact - pictured above. However, tonight at midnight, only 10 will have completed the requirement the DNC has for continuing support from the party and participation in debates.
This issue of qualification is closely related to our discussions of power and government structure as the idea of a party not necessarily accountable to the people (at least not directly) having the power to decide who (realistically) can or can not become president is capable of undermining democracy. This is especially true in the Democratic Party where "superdelegates" can vote on candidates without any input from the public. This current "make or break" phase is not likely to be controversial as I would venture to say that no person in the class can name all 11 candidates being eliminated, but it is notable to consider the impact that political parties wield in America.

Alexander Adelman