ECON 290: Milestone 3

Regent University

Econ 290

Milestone 3: FDR's Executive Order 6102

Serena Prince

Regent University

Prof. Jeff Bajah

October 2, 2022

Goals for this Milestone:

What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program

Section One & Two specifically demanded that every U.S. person, including “individual, partnership, association or corporation” must relinquish all their gold coins, gold bullion and gold certificates to the Federal Reserve by April 28th, 1933 (Roosevelt 1933, par. 1). Section Two provided certain exceptions to those whose trade required the use of gold commercially, such as miners and gold refiners, and artists. Americans were only able to possess up to $100 in gold or to those whose gold was earmarked for foreign bank, or licensed exporters of gold (Roosevelt 1933, par. 3). Section Four explains that once the gold was received by the Federal Reserve, the bank would give the person an equivalent amount in paper currency or U.S. minted coins. Other banks were required to surrender their gold to the Federal Reserve as well. The Secretary of the Treasury was given authority to enact any other regulations and administrative procedures in order to fulfill this order. Section Nine warns that violators could be charged with a fine of up to $10,000 or 10 years in prison (Roosevelt, 1933, par.14; The New York Times, 1933).

How did those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

The general American population did not have a say in this decision. Those who opposed the order tried fighting it in court, but all rulings in the Gold Clause Cases favored the federal government (MacLean, 1937).

Which groups or people are most impacted by these decisions or policies?

Those with the greatest gold ownership would be the ones with the most impact, especially corporations and wealthy people who were forced to forfeit their gold in exchange for paper currency.

What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

This expanded the executive powers of the president, using this national crisis to justify such a nationwide financial emergency act (CRS Report 1996 p.2). It completely restructured the U.S. economy and how it holds assets and converts assets.

Concept Questions:

1. Is there a voting aspect to this policy? If not directly maybe indirectly (maybe there was not a vote about the actual policy but the decision makers were voted on)

Given the nature of an executive order, this bill was not voted upon. FDR used his executive power to enforce this act. It was later when Congress voted to support and codified his executive order in The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (Congress 1934).

2. What were the elections like? Are the decision makers truly representative of the group (even if there was not an election)

There was no direct election, it was implemented quickly as an emergency order. FDR made a unilateral act. The decision makers were not truly representing the group of U.S. citizens who owned gold but rather the interests of the federal government, federal reserve, and the banking system.The judicial system favored the order as well (MacLean, 1937).

3. What are the compromises and being made? Is there resistance to the policy? How stable is the policy? Could it be changed with just a few votes?

The only compromises or exceptions were to those who use gold for artistic purposes or who are miners or refiners of gold (Roosevelt 1933, par. 2). Yes, there was much resistance to this policy, especially from corporations. Multiple lawsuits were filed, but most decisions favored the government (MacLean, 1937).). Since the executive, legislative, and judicial branch were for the most part in unity with the decision, it was able to be enforced effectively. It was not until 1974 when gold ownership was made legal again under President Gerald Ford by an Act of Congress in Pub. L. 93-373 (1974).

4. Do some involved seem to have disproportionate influence on the outcome? If so, who and why?

Yes, the entire federal government and the federal reserve dominated this decision, even the law enforcement had to enact this decision that effected all U.S. citizens without the consent of the people. This was done in the name of stabilizing the economy which also effected foreign investments. Since Congress has the power to coin money, they also used that power to stop the production of gold coins

References

Congress, U. S. (1934, January 30). Gold Reserve Act of 1934. FRASER. Retrieved September 4, 2022,

CRS Report. (1996). Presidential Emergency Powers: The So-Called "War Powers Act of 1933". Retrieved September 16, 2022, from https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19960820_95753_9f0fe5a5990563d678b0865693e5da564e1d24.pdf

MacLean, Angus.(1937). “Outline of the Gold Clause Cases - University of North Carolina at ...” UNC School of Law.https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1412&context=nclr.

Public Law 93-374-Aug. 14, 1974. Congress.gov. (1974). Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-88/pdf/STATUTE-88-Pg445.pdf

Roosevelt, F. D. (1933, April 5). Executive order 6102-requiring gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates to be delivered to the Government. Executive Order 6102-Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government | The American Presidency Project. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-6102-requiring-gold-coin-gold-bullion-and-gold-certificates-be-delivered

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act: A blow against the free market

Voting Aspect of the Policy

The Sherman Antitrust Act had an indirect voting aspect. Congress has many layers that are meant to ensure that the people have a say in their government. First, Congress is composed of two separate groups, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. The House of Representatives is directly elected by the people, with each state getting a number of Representatives, determined by its population, with a minimum of one representative (House of Representatives, n.d.). This is why California has 53 representatives and Alaska has one (House of Representatives, n.d.). The other group is the Senate. Each state gets two senators, though the method of deciding these senators has changed (United States Senate, n.d.). As of 1913, senators must be elected by popular vote, just like representatives (United States Senate, n.d.). However, in 1890, when the bill was passed, this was not the case (United States Senate, n.d.). Instead, each state’s legislatures would elect a Senator, as dictated by the Constitution (United States Senate, n.d.). Finally, you have the President, elected by an electoral college, a temporary body put together solely to elect a president (USA Gov, 2022). While these people look at the popular vote, and today, are required in many states to vote by the popular vote, this is not built into the Constitution (National Archives, 2021). This system was put in place, partially to counteract information lag, and partially to counteract ignorant voters from being manipulated (Hamilton, 1788, as cited in National Archives, n.d.). In this way, we have three bodies directly tied to passing a bill, The House of Representatives, directly elected by the people, the Senate, elected by the states, and the President, elected by the Electoral College, which is strongly influenced by the direct will of the people. The House and the Senate both must vote to pass a bill, and even then, if they lack two thirds majority, the President can veto the bill to stop it from passing. While this system only requires majority decision to pass a law, it is meant to make it very difficult to pass one. Just as two six-sided dice have a smaller chance of rolling a twelve than a twelve-sided die, these three bodies, all elected by different interest groups, make it very hard to pass a bill. Due to this system, both lobbyists and the general people have power over the federal government. The people can influence their legislators to get different candidates elected, vote for politicians they agree with, and talk to others to spread their opinion. In a like manner, lobbyists can bribe politicians themselves, or the people that elect them. However, as a general rule, lobbyists have far more success than the general populous.

The State of the Elections

In this case, the decision makers were representative of the group. If they were being lobbied, they would not have passed the Sherman Antitrust Act. After all, as a rule, most special interest groups are consolidated, and have a small number of people at the top of the chain of command. In this case, that would have been the large companies like Standard Oil or American Sugar. Instead, since it was passed without much opposition, even from congressmen that have been known to have been lobbied in the past, it is safe to say it was an accurate representation of the general populous at the time (The National Archives, 2022). However, that is not necessarily the only way to determine such a thing. For example, some theorists support the idea that people that feel more strongly about an issue should get a larger say on the running of the government. With this in mind, the answer is slightly foggier. Undoubtedly, trusts had a very strong opinion on this issue. After all, they had the most to lose from the Sherman Antitrust Act’s passing. Even though the collective cost of trusts was great, the individual cost was not nearly as much. However, the trusts had a great deal to gain from preventing its passing. With this said, we can still say that the vote was an accurate example of what the general populous wanted. This is because the strong feelings of the trusts were already baked into the decision making that went into passing the bill. Lobbyists show their stronger desires, by lobbying. The fact that the bill still was passed goes to show just how strongly the public thought about this bill.

How Strong is the Policy

While this bill has many flaws, one thing it does do effectively is being one of the most stable bills of all time. While many large companies tried to resist this policy, the decision makers in question did not compromise, and at least at the time, it was not going to be repealed. While other acts following it, like the Clayton Antitrust Act, were not as solid, for the majority of the policies’ lifespan, it has had a good reputation in the public eye (Pate, 2004; History, Art & Archives, n.d.). However, with that said, due to the nature of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Congress and the President were not the only decision makers. The Supreme Court is another body that has a lot of power over the bill. That is due to the highly interpretive nature of the document. We have seen that the effectiveness of the bill has a lot to do with the opinion of the Supreme Court (Pate, 2004). When the Supreme Court has a liberal view of the document, it sees a lot of use (Pate, 2004). When it has a conservative view of the document, it sees very little use (Pate, 2004). In this way, it technically had three decision makers for its conception. The legislative branch, that passed the law, the President, that can veto the law, and the Supreme Court, that can nullify or strengthen the bill whenever they please. While this was the case for a while, this is not the America of the 1890s anymore, and the bill is a lot more controversial. More recently, it has seen some opposition, and can, at any time, be repealed with a simple majority in Congress. With that said, given that Congress is currently looking at a bill that strengthens the Sherman Antitrust Act, (it has not been voted on in either house yet), it is unlikely that they will do that any time soon.

Disproportionate Influences

No one has a disproportionate effect on the outcome. You can say many negative things about the bill, but no special interest groups had any significant impact on the outcome. In fact, if anything, they had an unusually small impact on the bill, all things considered. There may actually be a Bootlegger and Baptist explanation for why this is the case. With the Bootlegger and Baptist story, two parts are required. You have the Bootleggers, which give funding and support to the politicians and bureaucrats. Then you have the Baptists, that can act as a facade for the bill, giving it credibility. Bootleggers cannot publicly lobby Congress, but Baptists can. In some instances, the Bootleggers and the Baptists are the same organization. It may have an outward moral reason for why it wants the bill passed, but it has a much more potent financial reason to see it passed. However, with this bill, there were no Baptists. While many special interest groups had a lot of vested interest in seeing that the Sherman Antitrust Act was not passed, they had no moral reason for it. There were no organizations trying to prevent the bill from passing to protect the rights of trusts. Beyond that, due to the public interest being so well focused against trusts, politicians had no explanation for why voting against the bill made sense. While many today do not support the Act, as they believe it is ineffective, we have never seen a company since Standard Oil with as much influence on everyday life. While afterwards, many public officials were hesitant to use the Act, in its passing, it represented the public interest (Pate, 2004). However, with all that said, there was a reason why the public outcry was so focused. Muckrakers, now referred to as investigate journalists, were the main reason why the public was so fervently against trusts (Britannica, 2022). Due to some very popular articles on Standard Oil, picked due to it only having one owner, the public learned of trusts and the tactics they employed (Britannica, 2022). This is why the outcry was focused on trusts, instead of the usual unfocused frustration. In this way, muckrakers did have a disproportionate effect on the outcome, while having very little vested interest in the results.

References

Britannica. (2022, January 02). Ida Tarbell. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ida-Tarbell.

History, Art & Archives, U.S. House of Representatives. (n.d.). The Clayton Antitrust Act. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/15032424979.

House of Representatives. (n.d.). Directory of Representatives. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://www.house.gov/representatives.

National Archives. (n.d.). The Federalist No. 68, [12 March 1788]. Retrieved September 23, 2022, from https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0218.

National Archives. (2021, May 11). About the Electors. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#selection.

National Archives. (2022, March 15). Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act.

Pate, R., H. (2004, May 11). Antitrust Law in the U.S. Supreme Court. U. S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/antitrust-law-us-supreme-court.

United States Senate. (n.d.). About Electing and Appointing Senators | Historical Overview. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/overview.htm.

USA Gov. (2022, September 13). Presidential Election Process. https://www.usa.gov/election.

The bill was introduced to the Georgia Senate by Senators Anavitarte of the 31st, Payne of the 54th, Thompson of the 14th, Robertson of the 29th and Hickman of the 4th to make changes to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated; specifically, to amend Articles 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 12. This section relates to the “general provisions regarding parks, historic areas, memorials, and recreation” (SB 319/AP). The bill was voted on and passed by the Georgia Senate on April 1, 2022 with a vote of 32 for and 22 against. Although the public didn’t get to vote, they did elect those that did vote for and against this bill and as seen any of the elected officials were for it. There was some resistance to the bill passing as it failed to pass in the House twice and the Senate once before ultimately being passed and signed by the Governor. There is a bit of disproportionate influence on the side of the republicans on the rules committee who hold a 12 to 3 advantage when it comes to voting outcomes, which means that more than likely a bill that they want passed will get the needed votes.

References

Branas, C., Reeping, P., & Rudolph, K. (2021). “Beyond Gun Laws—Innovative Interventions to Reduce Gun Violence in the United States.” Archives of general psychiatry 78.3: 243–244. Web.

Bunch, R. (2022). “Kemp signs bill allowing permitless carry of a concealed handgun in public” Retrieved from Kemp signs bill allowing permitless carry of a concealed handgun in public | Georgia Public Broadcasting (gpb.org)

National Archives. (2022). The Bill of Rights: What Does it Say? Retrieved from The Bill of Rights: A Transcription | National Archives

SB 319/AP. (2022). Senate Bill 319. Retrieved from C:\pdf\211518.wpd (ga.gov)

Votes: GA SB319 | 2021-2022 | Regular Session | LegiScan

1) What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program?

Originally the DREAM Act was introduced in 2001 by Representative Luis Gutierrez to the supreme court, when it first failed to pass. It was reintroduced many times over the years and failed all 5 times. Then in 2012, United States president, Barack Obama gave an executive order to implement DACA, which is the spiritual successor to DREAM. However, DACA was not meant to give immigrants a path to citizenship like the DREAM act would have. So there really wasn’t much of a vote on the policy and in fact the vote seemed highly against the bill. Goes to show the power of rebranding your ideas. They might just be forced into law by a temporary king.

2) How did the those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

The people most affected by the bill were not even able to vote. As illegal immigrants aren’t allowed to vote, even if they are over the age to vote. There was one instance when the bill was going to be repealed in 2020 but the University of California took a case to the supreme court and were able to get a rule against the recession. The university has a 20% Mexican enrollment, and it would be hard to believe that absolutely no DACA benefactors supported this case. (University of California, 2020)

3) Which groups or people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

The largest group impacted by the legislation are Mexicans. Out of the 590,070 applicants 476,780 of them are ethnically Mexican, that’s 82% of all applicants. (U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services, 2021)

4) What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

One unintended consequence is that the DACA is that beneficiaries are overall in less poverty than their non-DACA counterparts. However, they are just as likely to not attend school. (University of colorado, 2016) Which is what I was afraid of being the bills underlying intent, to boost the U.S. labor market with cheap, low skill workers. But another unintended consequence is that many of those on DACA will have the ability to attain citizenship indirectly through DACA. (Grassley, 2017)

References

GeorgeTown Law Library . (2016). A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States. Retrieved from GeorgeTown Law Library : https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4170929

Grassley, C. (2017, September 1). Data Indicate Unauthorized Immigrants Exploited Loophole to Gain Legal Status, Pathway to Citizenship. Retrieved from Chuck Grassley: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/data-indicate-unauthorized-immigrants-exploited-loophole-gain-legal-status

U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services. (2021, June 30). Count of active DACA Recipients. Retrieved from U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/Active%20DACA%20Recipients%20%E2%80%93%20June%2030%2C%202021.pdf

University of California. (2020). Fall enrollment at a glance. Retrieved from University of California: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/fall-enrollment-glance

University of colorado. (2016, December 12). DACA curbs poverty, but lowers school attendance. Retrieved from CU Boulder Today: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2016/12/12/daca-curbs-poverty-lowers-school-attendance

Jamie Cruz

Professor Bajah

ECON 290

October 6, 2021

Milestone 3

In Texas, 67 percent of Texas Republicans express the idea that if everyone carries guns it would be a safer society (Blank, 2021). Obviously, the Texan republicans holds that belief because the state of Texas has always been the sanctuary for the second amendment. However, with the existing of the HB 1927 policy police organizations felt that the promise to “back the blue” was forgotten. In February 2017, just weeks after taking office, President Trump issued an executive order “Back the Blue” that directed the Department of Justice to enhance the protection and safety of our law enforcement (Why we must back the blue, 2019). Due to this fear, Texas wanted to ensure and make clear that an officer has the right to remove a firearm if danger is perceived as stated, “A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a person at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the person, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the person before discharging the person from the scene if the officer determines that the person is not a threat to the officer, person, or another individual” (Texas Legislature Online - 87(R) text for HB 1927, n.d.).

The supporters of the HB 1927 argue that it restores Second Amendment rights and makes this form of self-defense available to individuals who may not be able to afford the classes, licensing, and background check fees. It protects the privacy of Texan citizens and will possibly reduce the number of mass shootings in the state. However, the ones that are against the HB 1927 argue that it removes barriers for untrained individuals to hold firearms and it affects with the search of justice as it increases the difficulty for law enforcement to identify possible suspects in active crime scene investigations. Also, it pointlessly reduces the distribution of legal information and gun safety procedures which in turn raises the likelihood of gun violence (Cruz, 2021).

The approval of Texas HB 1927 impacted the officers that trained people to hold a gun. Now, the gun training is not needed to own a gun, so those officers are not needed in the state. The unintended consequence is that guns will fall in the wrong hands. When a 21-year-old or older adult buys a gun and does not safely store it, the weapon is open to be handled by whoever sees it like any adolescent that live in the same household of the gun owner.

References

Blank, B. J. H. J. (2021, April 21). Texas Republicans take a hard right turn on guns, but who's behind the wheel? The Texas Politics Project. Retrieved October 7, 2021, from https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/texas-republicans-take-hard-right-turn-guns-who%E2%80%99s-behind-wheel.

Cruz, K. (2021, September 7). Pros and cons of the Texas Constitutional Carry Law. Watts Guerra LLP. Retrieved October 7, 2021, from https://wattsguerra.com/pros-and-cons-of-the-texas-constitutional-carry-law/.

Texas Legislature Online - 87(R) text for HB 1927. (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2021, from https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1927.

Why we must "back the blue". The United States Department of Justice. (2019, February 11). Retrieved October 7, 2021, from https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtn/opinion/why-we-must-back-blue-1.

People it has impacted most:

The second motivation for the U.S. to participate in a bilateral agreement with Korea is market access. An example of this would be seen in the agriculture industry. "Attaining comprehensive market access for U.S. agricultural products to South Korea's large market and finding a way to resolve South Korea's continued restrictions on U.S. beef purchases (imposed to protect human health following the late 2003 discovery of mad cow disease in the U.S. cattle herd) were the two primary objectives pursued by U.S. agricultural negotiators"(Congressional Research Service, 2014). The cow disease made selling beef to Korea extremely expensive due to safety concerns for their citizens. So the bilateral agreement has opened an opportunity for the people "affected by the cow disease taxes; Now allowing them to sell beef to Korea with fewer taxes. This gives these people a huge incentive to trade in Korea's market once the tariff is eliminated.

Solving disputes:

When problems arise between the two countriesKorea's," the trade agreement was specific to make a third party involved (unless otherwise directed by the participating parties)."The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement established a number of committees and working groups to discuss and resolve issues that may arise" (Office of the United States Trade Representative).In order to resolve any problems that may arise between the U.S. and Korea, the "KORUS FTA requires the two countries to establish a joint committee chaired by the USTR and the Minister of Foreign Trade or their designees to supervise the implementation of the agreement" (Congressional Research Service, 2014).

Unintended Consequences:

The frequency of trade essentially is going to increase between two countries with a bilateral trade agreement. With tariffs being lifted it allows more access to those who may not have participated in the market due to those taxes. The volume of trade after the KORUS agreement began to increase. However,""a number of critics have pointed to the U.S.- South Korea bilateral trade deficit which grew rapidly following the implementation of the agreement" (Katheryn N. Russ, Deborah L. Swenson, 2019). This is the biggest critic people have because it means Korea is buying more than selling. Their argument is that the trade agreement is not showing many benefits for the U.S. However, "since 2016, the bilateral deficit has declined by nearly $9 billion to $7.4 billion in 2019" (Williams, B., Canis, B., & Manyin, M, 2021, pg. 2). The trade deficit is something that they should keep an eye on but because of the progress we have seen in recent years, it should not be something that dictates the relationship. Communicating about how to resolve the problem of the trade deficit is the best thing to do from here.

References

Williams, B., Canis, B., & Manyin, M. (2021). U.S.-South Korea (korus) FTA. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 5, 2021, from https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/IF10733.pdf.

Congressional Research Service. (2014). The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (Korus FTA): Provisions and implementation. EveryCRSReport.com. Retrieved October 4, 2021, from https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34330.html.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). U.S. – Korea free trade agreement. International Trade Administration | Trade.gov. Retrieved October 4, 2021, from https://www.trade.gov/us-korea-free-trade-agreement.

Katheryn N. Russ, Deborah L. Swenson. (2019). Trade Diversion and Trade Deficits: The Case of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Volume 52, Pages 22-31, ISSN 0889-1583,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie.2019.02.001. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889158318301394).

Office of the United States Trade Representative. (n.d.). Korus committees and Working Groups. United States Trade Representative. Retrieved October 5, 2021, from https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/japan-korea-apec/korea/korus-committees-and-working-groups.

Brenna May

Dr. Bajah

ECON 290

October 3, 2021

Milestone 3

1. What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program?

Texas Senate Bill 8 was recently passed in Texas on September 1st. The bill’s purpose is making all abortions of a fetus passed 6 weeks illegal. However, because of the rules and laws established in the constitution, this bill had to be written very differently from other bills. Despite the bill, which is now law in Texas, banning all abortions passed 6 weeks, the state cannot legally enforce this ban, as it would be a constitutional violation. The authors of the bill figured out a possible loophole; the state cannot legally enforce a ban on abortion, however, citizens can launch civil suits against anyone who has had, provided, or in any way helped a patient to receive an abortion within the state of Texas (Reynolds, 2021). The bill has been written to empower citizens to use civil courts to enforce the bill, leaving the state out of it completely. It is still yet to be seen if these civil suits hold up in court.

2. How did the those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

Texas Senate Bill 8 directly impacts abortion providers and women seeking abortions. Pro-choice activists and organizations protested and advocated against the bill and since its passing and implementation into law, country-wide, and even nation-wide protests have taken place. However, ultimately those who are impacted by the bill itself had no input on the decision or contents within the bill.

3. Which groups or people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

Those most impacted by the bill are women and abortion providers. Women seeking abortions are obviously the most impacted group, but within this group the most negatively affected are going to be low-income women. Women who are seeking an abortion can travel out of state to receive one, so long as they have the means. Upper middle-class women will be able to receive abortions still, while lower class women who cannot afford to travel out of state are going to have a much harder time receiving care. These women who are unable to travel out of state to receive abortions are going to be forced to have children they possibly cannot afford in the first place, continuing a cycle of poverty and dependence on government assistance.

There is also the risk of at home abortions becoming common again and leading to injury and deaths. Prior to the Row vs Wade decision, unsafe abortions accounted for nearly 2,700 deaths in the 1930 (Gold, 2003).

4. What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

There are many consequences to this bill like the possibility of rising mother mortality rates due to unsafe abortions and rising poverty. Although, I do not think these possible consequences would be unintended. However, one glaring unintended consequence the authors of Texas Senate Bill 8 seem to have not considered is how their bill empowers vigilante justice. That is, citizens enforcing and enacting justice and punishment against their fellow citizens.

If this bill was to have the intended effect, it could lead copycat bills that would essentially empower and grant citizens to right to enforce laws that the state legally cannot. This style of bill could be utilized by anyone, be them left or right leaning. Of course, many legal scholars do not believe this bill can hold up constitutionally, we still have not seen a civil suit against anyone who received or provided an abortion successful won.

References

Gold, R. (2003). Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue? Guttmacher Policy Review, 6(1). https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue#

Reynolds, K. (2021). Texas doctors association condemns abortion ban, says it encourages “vigilante interference” in doctor-patient relationship. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-doctors/

Kiersten McDonald

Dr. Bajah

ECON 290

3 October 2021

1. What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program?

While there wasn’t an organization that influenced the creation of this law, the rules surrounding this law are clear. First, the law issues either an annual scholarship to black students who have documented proof of their lineage to slaves who worked at one of the five major universities in Virginia (UVA, Longwood University, Virginia Military Institute, VCU, and William & Mary) or economic development programs to housing communities who have historic connections to slavery. Next, the universities listed in the law are not allowed to use state or tuition funds towards the program nor can they increase tuition fees in order to fund it either (unknown, 2021, section B). Finally, they’re required to meet and collaborate with the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV) and send an annual report to them of the guidelines and programs they’ve created to address the role of slavery in each individual school (sections C and E).

2. How did those impacted by this decision have input into this decision?

For the universities impacted, the law allows them to have individual input through the guidelines that will be established by SCHEV. Depending on what they will be, it will permit the schools to act freely within those guidelines. For example, UVA has been in collaboration with its Memorial to Enslaved Laborers Community Engagement Committee, discussing a scholarship program for descendants prior to this bill being formed (O’Hare, 2021, para. 15). Another group impacted, special interest groups, have input in this law by collaborating with these universities. According to O’Hare, doing so will result in “righting past wrongs and ensuring a more equitable future programs [sic]” (para. 23) for all impacted. Finally, the law encourages other private or public schools who have a legacy of slavery to participate voluntarily (unknown, 2021, section F).

3. Which groups or people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

The people who will be impacted by this decision the most are the universities mentioned in the bill and its recipients: African-American students who are descendants of slaves who labored on these university campuses in the past, and those who live in poor, black communities historically connected to slavery. In addition, special interest groups that focus on racial issues are affected as well. Universities are affected because they’re being “economically held accountable for profiting off of slavery” (Grablick, 2021, para. 1) and are the ones who have to create the guidelines for those who are descendants. African-American students who are descendants are the ones who directly benefit from the scholarship given to them by the universities. Poor black communities are the focus for the potential economic development programs that may be awarded to them by the universities. Finally, special interest groups are affected in that through this law passing, their influence and potential followers can grow as a result.

4. What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

A potential unintended consequence of this law is affirmative action-based programs. Due to the language and purpose of the law, it’s geared towards black students who descend from slaves who worked on the campuses and poor black communities. According to Harry J. Holzer (2007), affirmative action results in “reverse discrimination” (8), and for the potential student who is white and may have descendants who were poor and worked on the university campuses, they ultimately wouldn’t qualify due to their race, and poor white communities who are in need of economic development wouldn’t have access to the programs. However, for black students who do qualify, the universities have a perverse incentive in this by giving the scholarship to those whose academics do not meet the university’s standard. Depending on how ethnically diverse each university is, they may have a desired “quota” to meet regarding ethnic diversity, and, according to legal journalist Stuart Taylor Jr. and law professor Richard Sander in their book, Mismatch: How Affirmative action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It, this creates “mismatch”, and results in “a substantial credentials gap at nearly all selective schools” (Heriot, 2013, para.7), resulting in black students being unable to perform well academically due to their low entry credentials alongside their peers.

References

Heriot, G., Posner, E., & Rector, R. (2013). The sad irony of affirmative action. National Affairs. Retrieved October 4, 2021, from https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action.

Holzer, H. J. (2007). The Economic Impact of affirmative action in the US. Retrieved October 4, 2021, from https://www.government.se/contentassets/6310cf0f5c5049c6b0ee15d1cfc49b74/harry-holzer-the-economic-impact-of-affirmative-action-in-the-us.

O'Hare, E. (2021, May 6). Creating guidelines key for new scholarship program for descendants of Enslaved University Laborers. Charlottesville Tomorrow • Charlottesville's source for public service journalism. Retrieved October 4, 2021, from https://www.cvilletomorrow.org/articles/creating-guidelines-key-for-new-scholarship-program-for-descendants-of-enslaved-university-laborers/.

Danielle Ward

Professor Bajah

ECON-290

10/3/21

Milestone #3 (Blog Post)

Rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program (CA Wildfire Policy, AB 297 and AB 1459)?

It would be inaccurate to say that the rules of any one organization is influencing current CA wildfire policy and program proposals such as AB 297 (Wildfire Prevention and Forest Resiliency Act of 2021) and AB 1459 (Home Hardening and Defensible Space Clearance), because the severity of California’s wildfire issue did not spring forth overnight. The problem has been several decades in the making, primarily resulting from a variety of formal wildfire policies as a direct response to California society, state/local organizations and institutions’ understanding of wildfire (aka: fire culture). California’s wildfire policy can be separated into historic periods, each serving as a reflection of the current “fire culture” and societal values at the time.

For instance, the “Fire Control Era” began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, during which the “multidecadal relationship between temperature and fire” steadily decayed with the formal introduction of federal fire policy and national forests, “disappearing after the implementation of systematic fire suppression” (Taylor et al., 2016). National forests--or “forest reserves” as they had been previously known--were intended to “protect the timber” from wildfire and excessive logging (Pinchot 1907). In 1905, not long after the creation of forest reserves (1891), the U.S. Forest Service agency was formed. Under the direction of the first chief, Gifford Pinchot, “a national forest fire policy was initiated, and the agency began systematic fire suppression,” which included “the development of an infrastructure of fire control facilities, equipment, fire stations, lookouts, and trails” (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018).

The “Fire Suppression and Management Era” is considered to have begun some time in the early 1900s, during which a “zero tolerance” approach toward wildfire was adopted in the wake of the Big Blowup of 1910, and thereafter fire suppression dominated wildfire and forest management policymaking in the United States. “Light burning” practices (prescribed burns) were viewed in a negative light by the public throughout most of the 20th Century. Bolstering this belief were the numerous articles and scientific studies published during the 1920s defending fire suppression policies and disproving the legitimacy of “light burning.” The passage of the federal Clarke-McNary Act in 1924 also essentially deemed fire suppression as national policy, a law which tied federal appropriations to the state first adopting fire suppression policy. Further solidifying fire suppression as the national status quo was the “Smokey Bear” campaign launched in the 1940s (“Remember, only you can prevent wildfires.”), a national education program that encouraged individuals to help prevent wildfires. The campaign’s influence was certainly long-lasting, as it is one of the most successful, if not the most successful, public education programs in the U.S. Additionally, many of the tools and tactics utilized during WWII were repurposed for fire suppression—"aerial retardant drops, helitack crews, bulldozers, and smokejumpers became the new tools of choice,” greatly improving firefighting capabilities, and ensuring the continuation of full-fire suppression policy (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018).

What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

By the 1970s, the Forest Service recognized that the suppression of wildfires had “increased in intensity/severity and further acknowledged prescribed burning policy as a viable form of wildfire management. Another modification to federal wildland fire management policy would be made in 1995, which was essentially a formal recognition of the essentiality of wildfire to ecological processes. Nevertheless, it very well may be that this understanding came just a little too late. Harold Biswell, an influential advocate for prescribed burnings, speculated that fire management was on a collision course with disaster, as “wildfires continue to become more intense and destructive of resources, and expenses in fire control are increasing at an astronomical rate” (Biswell 1999). Biswell seems to have been correct in his observation--for “while society as a whole continues to value the suppression of wildfire,” and ecosystems continue to be influenced by reducing the impact of fire as an ecosystem process, “there is an increasing recognition among land managers that the long-term exclusion of fire has changed fuel dynamics, especially in forests that once burned frequently with low-moderate-intensity fire regimes, and is changing the pattern of uncontrollable wildfires” which has rendered several modern methods of wildfire management ineffective, particularly in California (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018).

How did the those impacted by this decision have input into the decision? Which groups or people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

Regarding the “Fire Control Era” during the late 1800s and early 1900s, it is interesting to note that, in its early years, the U.S. Forest Service did not garner immediate, universal support. The agency dealt with its fair share of opponents for several years, the most vocal group being private forest managers and owners from the Southern Cascades. Recognizing the ecological importance of wildfires (particularly in the removal of understory vegetation and reducing risk of conflagrations), these private foresters promoted “light burning,” a concept that was modeled after indigenous burning methods of the California Indians, which fell out of practice during European-American settlement in the early-mid 1800s. The indigenous population, along with their traditional burning practices, began to diminish during this time because of interference with “the agricultural, ranching, lumbering, and gold mining plans of the new settlers,” which caused “the authorities to draw up edicts, agreements, and proclamations prohibiting burning by California Indian Tribes” (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018). It is truly unfortunate that the U.S. Forest Service disagreed with the Southern Cascades private foresters on the practice of “light burning,” who were directly impacted, though not given input on wildfire policy direction. Groups such as these (private foresters, California Indian Tribes, land development managers, etc.) and Wildland Urban-Interface (WUI) communities are certainly among the most impacted by past, present, and future wildfire policy decisions. Increasing concern is that California’s population continues to skyrocket, leading to an expansion of housing within wildland vegetation—wildland urban interface (WUI)—thus elevating the risk of property damage and fatality, given that WUIs are where most wildfires occur, and that community fire resilience planning is not often taken into consideration during land development.

References

Biswell, H. (1999). Prescribed Burning in California Wildlands Vegetation Management. University of California Press.

Pinchot, G. (1907). The Use of the National Forests. USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C., USA.

Taylor, A., Trouet, V., Skinner, N., Stephens, S. (2016). Socioecological transitions trigger fire regime shifts and modulate fire–climate interactions in the Sierra Nevada, USA, 1600–2015 CE: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(48).

Van Wagtendonk, J., Sugihara, N., Stephens, S., Thode, A., Shaffer, K., & Fites-Kaufman, J. (2018). Fire in California's Ecosystems. Oakland, California: University of California Press.

Lydia Strickland

ECON 290

Dr. Bajah

October 3, 2021

Milestone #3

A. Rules of Organization that are Influenced/Impacted by Policy

The main supporters behind Senate Bill 334 are the Republican Party. The new bill requires licensing requirements for anyone wanting to start a Needle Exchange Program and any pre-existing programs. These new licensing requirements for newly started needle exchange programs requires to have the support of the county commission and sheriff, pay an application fee and have a 30-day comment period. All needle exchange programs, whether new or pre-existing, are required to provide a full range of services, including HIV testing, and any programs only providing needles must dissipate within six months after the bill is passed. There must also be a 1:1 ration with the needle exchange, in order for someone to receive clean needles, they must return their dirty ones. In order to receive needles, one must have a West Virginia ID, and they cannot receive needles for another person (Herald-Dispatch, 2021).

B. The Input of Those Impacted by the Decision

The main argument against Senate Bill 334 is that it is unconstitutional. People opposed to the bill all sent letters to Governor Justice stated their position and what they expected the outcome to be, an increase in HIV cases and dirty needles on the ground. The ACLU-WV filed a lawsuit in an attempt to stop Governor Justice from signing the bill weeks before he actually signed it (Reports, 2021). After the bill was signed, Federal Judge Robert Chambers halted the implementation of the Bill while it was considered for its constitutionality, which was deemed constitutional.

C. Groups Most Impacted by Decision

The demographic most affected by this decision would first be those with substance abuse. The program was designed to prevent HIV outbreaks by sharing and reusing dirty needles in that community. If these restrictions are imposed on the Needle Exchange Programs, then this would prevent many substance abusers from getting access to clean needles, therefore increasing the possibility of an HIV outbreak.

The other group that is affected by this legislation is the already existing Needle Exchange Programs. These programs will be required to change essentially everything about them. They will have to begin providing other services, such as the HIV testing, which can be expensive. If not, then they will have to cease the program or face criminal charges.

D. Unintended Consequences

One of the unintended consequences to this bill is the closing of many needle exchange programs across the state. The new licensing requirements, such as requiring the approval of county commission and sheriff and providing a full range of services such as HIV testing, could prove to be too much and force the programs to close, or face criminal charges.

The main unintended consequence that the opposition is worried about is an HIV outbreak. West Virginia has already had two of the worst HIV outbreaks in the country, and part of the CDC’s recommendation to prevent another one is to improve access to clean, sterile needles (Department of Health and Human Resources). The opposition to the bill worry that with the potential of multiple needle exchange programs closing and less access to clean needles, HIV will be spread more quickly through the use of dirty needles that are shared among drug users.

References

Department ofHealth & Human Resources. WVDHHR. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2021, from https://dhhr.wv.gov/News/2021/Pages/Final-CDC-Recommendations-on-Kanawha-County-HIV-Outbreak-Presented-.aspx.

Herald-Dispatch, T. A. Y. L. O. R. S. T. U. C. K. T. (2021, March 14). 'no justification:' Senate bill will end syringe services in WV, experts say. Dispatch. Retrieved October 3, 2021, from https://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/no-justification-senate-bill-will-end-syringe-services-in-wv-experts-say/article_78b2bce1-0f7d-5d56-852b-d50b73da6edb.html.

Reports, F. S. (2021, June 25). ACLU-WV files suit weeks before newly passed West Virginia Bill to take effect. WV News. Retrieved October 3, 2021, from https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/aclu-wv-files-suit-weeks-before-newly-passed-west-virginia-bill-to-take-effect/article_a4062282-33da-50ab-8a76-cb2762109c09.html.

The institutional structure behind the Texas abortion law is our governments judicial system. Essentially, the states have the right to make their own laws concerning abortion as long as it stays within the confines of any Supreme court decisions. If a citizen thinks that a law is unfair it can reach appeal processes that eventually bring it to the Supreme court for review and they can overturn or keep whatever decision was originally reached. This greatly impacts the policy of the abortion law in Texas because it could have provided the opportunity for a higher entity to reverse the law.

The organization that influenced and impacted this policy was the Texas state government. It follows the same rules as any state government in the United States in that it can enact a law and has to be passed through its court system. There are several appeals of a proposed law that can take place, but the most important in this scenario was that of the Supreme Court. They had the ability to step in before the bill was passed and have shown that they have been “…willing to bend over backwards and issue late-night decisions in other contexts, including, for example, to protect religious liberty” but in this case, did not (NPR, 2021).

The impacted parties have mainly been women and the abortion clinics and parties that perform abortions. These parties had no say whatsoever in the determination of this bill. Despite many women submitting appeals to the Supreme Court and Texas courts in trying to get exceptions to the ruling, none have been passed to this point. The most that each group can do is speak out against and peacefully protest the decision that was made. This decision affects the lives of women in Texas more than anything. It severely limits their ability to be able to choose what to do with a major change in their lives. It also goes deeper than just the idea of abortion; it will give women pause when they choose to do certain sexual activities in their lives, thus imparting a sort of control on how they live and the decisions that are made. The doctors and abortion clinic workers are also impacted as well. They get paid for their services no matter what the opinion is on abortion. This leaves them without money and the ability to have a livelihood. They then have to find new jobs and also have to worry about be sued if they are even suspected of helping someone obtain an abortion.

References

McCammon, S. (2021, September 1). What the Texas Abortion ban does - and what it means for other states. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033202132/texas-abortion-ban-what-happens-next.

Supreme Court Fails To Get Involved, So Texas Abortion Law Goes Into Effect. (2021). Morning Edition (NPR).https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033194576/supreme-court-fails-to-get-involved-so-texas-abortion-law-goes-into-effect

Texas Heart-Beat Bill Milestone 3.

Briana Slaubaugh

ECON 290

Dr Jeff Bajah

10/3/2021

Texas Heart-Beat Bill.

Explain policy/decision (Explain the project in detail. Elaborate further from milestone 1).

Groundbreaking legislation was recently passed in Texas known as, TX Senate Bill 8, an act relating to abortion; authorizing a private civil right of action (Texas, 2021). It is an important piece of legislation passed by the Texas Senate and signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abott. This policy protects the lives of pre-born babies by banning all abortions following the detection of a heart-beat, which is around six weeks gestational age (Israel, 2021). This effectively bans nearly all abortions in Texas and also prohibits aiding someone from obtaining an abortion. Historically, abortion bans passed by states legislators have been quickly struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds of the precedent set in Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the right to abortion as a protected right under the U.S. Constitution (1973).

Texas developed a novel approach to avoid the typical problems when passing pro-life legislation. Typically, when a bill is struck down by the Supreme Court, those enforcing the law are sued; however, Texas explicitly circumvented this by including in the bill a clause stating state officials may not enforce the law and are granted sovereign immunity against anyone seeking to bring suit, which means there is essentially no one abortion clinics or those seeking abortion can sue to bring it to the Supreme Court and get it struck down (Israel, 2021 & Texas, 2021). Instead, private citizens may bring a “civil enforcement action against someone who performs an abortion in violation of the law” or “assists someone in obtaining an illegal abortion” (Israel, para 7, 2021). Those found in violating the law can be sued by private citizens for ten-thousand dollars with no limit to the number of individuals who can join the lawsuit, meaning those fines could quickly add up to millions (Tavernise, 2021).

All of this means that it is very difficult for abortion advocates to fight the law. There is no direct path for the Supreme Court to strike down the law. The only real way for an abortion provider to claim a defense against the implementation of the law is to wait for a private citizen to sue and then to raise their claim that the Texas Bill itself is unconstitutional (Israel, 2021). However, this poses a major financial risk for abortion clinics as they face the possibility of losing millions in legal fees. Therefore, while abortion facilities are frantically searching for ways to combat the law, all abortions after six-weeks have ceased for the foreseeable future.

In the beginning of September, the Supreme Court decided 5-4, not to preemptively block the law from coming into effect (Swoyer, 2021). According to Chief Justice Roberts,

“The State defendants argue that they cannot be restrained from enforcing their rules because they do not enforce them in the first place. I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante — before the law went into effect — so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner

(Swoyer, para 4, 2021).”

Essentially, the courts cannot hold the state accountable since they are not the ones enforcing the law in the first place. This is important because many states have declared their intentions to follow suit (MacPherson, 2021). This is unprecedented law making, which challenges the typical approach to banning abortion and could revolutionize the pro-life fight to ban abortion in America.

Explain who the interested parties are and their interests (Who are the main interested parties including all stakeholders).

There are several interested parties when it comes to this policy. The first is abortion clinics in Texas. They are obviously interested in protecting their profits from abortion, so they are against abortion bans of any kind. They are the primary party fighting the ban in court. Abortion clinics such as planned parenthood have the upperhand when it comes to maintaining the legality of abortion, since they can afford large legal teams to fight the battle in court.

Pro-life advocates are another interested party. Their primary focus is protecting the lives of preborn children. Pro-choice advocates are interested parties, as they are concerned with preserving the right to abortion. For pro-choice advocates, it is a matter of bodily autonomy. Finally, politicians are interested parties since they benefit from the popularity of either defending or restricting abortion. For example, Governor Abbott of Texas faces the chance to gain popularity with his voting base for signing the bill into law.

Which groups or people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

When it comes to who is most impacted by the Texas Abortion Ban, women are the obvious frontrunners. Specifically women seeking an abortion. The restrictions in Texas will make it incredibly hard for low-income women or working women to obtain an abortion because of the limited time and high price of travelling. Unfortunately, Texas cannot prevent women with greater resources from merely travel to another state to get an abortion, which is already occurring in Texas, according to NPR (Martienez, 2021). However, it is not only women who are affected by the law. Those who aid or abet a woman getting an abortion are at risk for being sued. So this impacts everyone involved in the abortion process, even uber drivers if they are aware that an abortion was occurring (Bond, 2021). This places a high risk for those who help women get an abortion, for they are also culpable. While some people are opposed to this aspect of the law, it is not any different than someone who is charged with aiding in a murder. For example, when the person who drove the getaway car faces charges. Finally, aforementioned, abortion clinics and providers are greatly impacted. This is primarily a financial loss for these providers since Planned Parenthood alone is a billion dollar business (Israel, 2020).

How did those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

The Texas law was specifically designed to target abortion clinics and subsequently women seeking abortions as well. Therefore, those most impacted by the law were not exactly consulted on their opinion on the law. However, major protests occurred against the Texas Law on October 2, 2021 at the Women’s March in Washington D.C. (Shivaram, 2021). There is also the continued battle in court from the abortion clinics in Texas. The abortion industry is fighting tooth and nail to get this law struck down, which in someways was a form of input because Texas lawmakers knew that this would happen, thus leading to the development of a law that would withstand the typical approaches.

Explain what the institutional structure (bureaucracy and decision-making approach) is and how it impacts this decision

(What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program)?

The complex nature of American government and politics means that there are a lot of institutions involved regarding the Texas Heartbeat Bill. The bill was passed by the Texas Senate; however, because of the unique structure of the bill the Texas government will not be enforcing the law. The Texas Court System is also an institutional structure involved since private individuals will be suing those who aid or perform abortions. The Supreme Court is involved since the law will presumably be challenged in the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that the Texas Bill is unconstitutional, then it will be struck down. Because of the institutional rules of the Supreme Court and the precedent set by Roe v. Wade, the bill was intentionally designed to make it difficult to strike down. This is just one way that the institutions have influenced this bill.

What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

There are a few aspects of the Texas law that could lead to some unintended consequences. The very nature of the law, where citizens are essentially deputized to enforce laws, could open the door to other states passing laws inhibiting other rights that cannot be struck down by the Supreme Court when it is clearly unconstitutional. For example, a state could potentially pass a law banning the ownership or right to purchase firearms designed in the same way as Texas, where private citizens sue anyone who buys or sells a firearm. The precedent in Texas is not necessarily a completely positive one, even if it bans abortions. Furthermore, it also set precedent in the Supreme Court because it was ruled that they could not strike down the law before it went into effect, even though it contradicts the precedent set in Roe v Wade. The ideal way for abortion to be restricted around the United States would be for Roe v Wade to be overturned; however, this law essentially creates completely new precedents, which could be a risk to other freedoms. Ultimately, we must wait and see what will happen with the Texas law, for it could be a huge win for pro-life advocates, but we must always be vigilant about how it may be used against us.

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

1. This bill states that after an abortion has occurred citizens are allowed to file civil law suits against all those who perform or aid in an abortion.

2. It also excludes any public officials from enforcing the abortion ban; therefore, avoiding the typical route that abortion clinics utilize to strike down the restrictions.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

So far yes, but there will still be legal battles to see if the law will remain.

3. Is there a romance – reality disconnect in the policy? In other words, do people seem to expect a much more “public spirited” outcome than is realistic?

I do not think so.

4. What is the collective action the policy is supposed to accomplish? Or is there one? Is the policy designed to favor some over others? Be sure to distinguish between actual results and rhetoric.

1. This policy very obviously favors the unborn.

2. It also allocates money to centers that support women and babies throughout a pregnancy.

5. Are there special interests involved? Who? Are they successful?

1. Pro-life advocates, who are finding success through this bill. It is groundbreaking legislation that may completely change the pro-life fight in America.

2. I would say that the abortion clinics are a special interest, but they will be fighting this bill and using a lot of money to strike it down. As far as their success, the Supreme Court initially ruled against the abortion clinics (Swoyer, 2021).

Works Cited:

Bond, S. (2021, September 3). Lyft And Uber Will Pay Drivers’ Legal Fees If They’re Sued Under Texas Abortion Law. NPR. https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1034140480/lyft-and-uber-will-pay-drivers-legal-fees-if-theyre-sued-under-texas-abortion-la

Israel, M. (2020, April 21). Abortion Is Planned Parenthood’s “Essential” Billion-Dollar Business. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/abortion-planned-parenthoods-essential-billion-dollar-business

Israel, M. (2021, September 3). Texas Heartbeat Law Is Now in Effect. Here’s What You Need to Know. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/texas-heartbeat-law-now-effect-heres-what-you-need-know

MacPherson, J. (2021, September 2). Lawmaker: North Dakota may use Texas abortion law as model. The Washington Times. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/2/lawmaker-north-dakota-may-use-texas-abortion-law-a/

Martinez, A. (2021, September 2).What Texas' New Abortion Law Means For The People Who Seek And Provide Them. NPR. https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033541289/texas-abortion-law-may-force-women-to-seek-an-abortion-elsewhere

Shivaram, D. (2021, October 2). 5th Women’s March focuses on reproductive rights after new Texas abortion law. NPR. https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/2021/10/02/1042707939/womens-march-abortion-protests-washington-texas

Swoyer, A. (2021, September 2). Supreme Court divides 5–4, leaves Texas six-week abortion ban in place. The Washington Times. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/2/supreme-court-divides-5-4-to-leave-texas-abortion-/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=9+9N4OLksGiyGmyTljiBRLFLicYIVe5cScBOE7FFpA9EdqV7hTsSxeGlkwVnqS7r&bt_ts=1630571002292

Tavernise, S. (2021, September 12). Citizens, Not the State, Will Enforce New Abortion Law in Texas. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/abortion-law-regulations-texas.html

Texas SB8 | 2021–2022 | 87th Legislature. (2021, May 19). LegiScan. https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/2021

Roe v. Wade. 410 US 113. (United States Supreme Court, 1973). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

Cullen Jones

Dr. Jeff Bajah

ECON 290

October 3, 2021

1. What are the rules of the organization that influenced and participated and impacted the decision, policy, program?

Of the numerous organizations that support this bill[1], there appears to be a skew of left-leaning groups. Examples include Young Feminists & Allies: National Organization for Women’s (NOW) Inaugural Virtual Chapter and Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies to name a couple. One of the most prominent organizations in support of the H.R.5 bill is the Business Coalition for the Equality Act, which was founded in 2016 and has combined numerous Fortune 500 companies (HRC). Such companies include Apple, Nike, and Levi & Strauss brands. They had no specific influence in the creation of the bill, but their support of its potential passing to become law has certainly held quite a bit of weight. Among the official statements that come from some of the leading companies, there seems to be a sense of wanting LGBTQ individuals to be accepted no matter where they go or what they do, which is exactly what H.R.5 seeks to accomplish.

2. How did those impacted by this decision have input into the decision? / 3. Which groups or people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

As stated above, numerous left-leaning organizations have thrown their support to Congressional Democrats to pass this bill, including theological and religious groups. Obviously, there was a decent resistance to the bill due to the results of the vote in the House, which was 224 – 206 Yeas and Nays (U.S. Congress, 2021). There will certainly be a massive impact on those who support the bill due to both financial profit for corporations and expanded rights for the LGBTQ community. However, there are numerous groups that are impacted negatively, such as conservative churches and business owners. They may have voiced their opinions by lobbying, but the decision was left ultimately in the hands of the politicians who did the actual voting. It can be safe to say that organizations, while they helped with support for the bill, ultimately could not sway the votes of the House Representatives.

4. What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

When speaking of the churches and businesses that will be affected by this bill, one can definitely see that they will be negatively impacted, but this is not an unintended consequence of those who wish to push the bill forward. The very intention of H.R.5 results in the coercion of organizations and individuals, which many will not take lightly. Perhaps the unintended consequence of this bill is the creation of numerous court cases that will attempt to combat its reach. Depending on the Supreme Court’s ruling, this bill could seriously backfire on its supporters.

References

Business coalition for the equality act. HRC. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2021, from https://www.hrc.org/resources/business-coalition-for-equality.

Equality Act, H.R.5, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5/actions

[1] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fhrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2FOrgs-Endorsing-Equality-Act-4-16-21-1.pdf%3Fmtime%3D20210429104552%26focal%3Dnone&clen=194967&chunk=true

McKenzie Knaub

Dr. Bajah

ECON 290

3 October 2021

Blog Post Two: Milestone Three

A. What are the rules of the organization that influences and impacted the decision, policy, program?

The rules that impact this policy originated in the 1970s when Los Angeles enacted measures prohibiting local police from asking about immigration status to those they came in contact with. The city put this policy in place in an attempt to show the federal government that they disagree with the “unfair” immigration laws. Many urban areas have stated that they believe immigration enforcement by local police would reduce trust and cooperation between police officers and citizens. Ultimately, they believe that the lack of trust and cooperation could lead to higher crime rates. The idea of sanctuary cities began in the 1980s when religious institutions started offering refugee services to immigrants. San Francisco, in particular, took things a step further by prohibiting their city workers from using city resources to help the enforcement of federal immigration laws. They also have an administrative code that does not allow city law enforcement to detain an individual based on immigration status. They started making these changes after a raid on a dance club in 1989 in which many United States citizens were detained.

B. How did those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

Some people call for reformed laws after the Bologna murder of 2008. An undocumented gang member killed a San Franciscan man and two of his four sons after a case of mistaken identity. The murderer was previously convicted of two felonies but was not deported due to the sanctuary city policy. The victim’s wife spoke out and claimed that immigrants have more rights than citizens. This led to an amendment of the policy allowing minors convicted of a felony to be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

C. Which groups of people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

The three most impacted groups by these policies are law enforcement officers, undocumented immigrants, and the citizens of San Francisco. Law enforcement officers are impacted because of their limitations with what they can do with undocumented immigrants and their lack of cooperation with federal authorities. Undocumented immigrants are affected because these policies directly affect them, especially if they are committing crimes. Finally, the citizens of San Francisco are affected because they live amongst these immigrants and policies and sometimes do fall victim to crimes committed by undocumented immigrants that could have been preventable.

D. What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

An unintended consequence of this policy is that immigrants can get away with things more easily and sometimes fall through the cracks. As a result of that, innocent people can fall victim to preventable crimes. There is also backlash on law enforcement for not stopping these undocumented immigrants from committing these crimes sooner. There is also a tendency to pass blame around when the city and federal agencies are not cooperating.

References

Green, M. (2017, October 25). 'Sanctuary Cities' Explained. KQED.

Lagos, M. (2017, April 6). Long History of Sanctuary Laws, Debate in San Francisco. KQED.

Christian Bering

Professor Bajah

ECON 290

3 October 2021

Week 6: Milestone 3

The Pollution Prevention Act was enacted into policy by both businesses and government. In the 1970’s businesses and government noticed the need for change in the output of how much pollution was being produced. All of the American public became increasing aware that there needed to be a change. Pollution prevention began with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Each of these different Acts were reactive to many large industries being responsible for the bulk of pollution. There was not just one organization that campaigned for the policy to be put in place. On the whole, most business organizations are cooperative with the Pollution Prevention Act. Upon the Pollution Prevention Act being enacted, it did not have strict regulations to make great change, but with enthusiasm from local governments and media focus change began to happen. Contrary to demanding changes that would harm most industries, in the economy, the Pollution Prevention Act aimed to help businesses assess their own pollution problems and actively assist them in solving those problems (2015).

How did those impacted by the decision have input into the decision? As mentioned above, the public, businesses, and the government were all aware that the effects of pollution were serious. In the long run, everyone is affected by the decision to enact the policy. Businesses had to make the bulk of the change in their production processes. The core of the Pollution Prevention Act requires less toxic materials to be used at the start of production. When regulations tighten, it simply costs businesses money. For a business to change the materials at the start of production can cost be more expensive. And can potentially change the overall quality of the product. Although the Pollution Prevention Act itself has not caused any unintended consequences, pollution prevention itself has become a larger worldwide cause. Environmental Protection has also become a largely popular topic in political campaigns. The media is largely responsible for drawing attention to issues that will affect the generations ahead of us. Now there are many green incentives and stricter EPA laws that businesses must abide by. Just one example of many, there is talk that the U.S. will push for all vehicles to electric by 2030 (Valdes-Dapena, 2021).

References

(2015). “25 Years Preventing Pollution: A Retrospective Report”. PPRC. https://www.pprc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/P2-Retrospective_25-Year_Final-Draft_20151.pdf.

(2013). “Pollution Prevention: An Environmental Program Fact Sheet”. CT.gov. https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Permits-and-Licenses/Permitting-Factsheets/Pollution-Prevention-Fact-Sheet.

Valdes-Dapena, Peter (2021). “Biden’s electric vehicle sales goal won’t be too hard to reach by 2030”. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/cars/biden-electric-vehicle-sales-goal/index.html.

Tinesha Howell

Dr. Bajah

ECON 290

3 October 2021

Milestone 3

1. What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program?

The death penalty is a legal sentence imposed by the government. The federal government has approved capital punishment in 27 states. However, bills to repeal, modify, or extend capital punishment are often considered by state legislatures and the US Congress. The decision-making process is divided into various phases and bills must go through several stages once they are first introduced by a delegate. On February 22, the Senate passed the House bill by a vote of 22-16, and the House passed the Senate bill by a vote of 57-43, and thereafter Virginia’s governor Ralph Northam formally signed HB2263 into law to end the death penalty in the state.

The Constitution's Tenth Amendment states that states have all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government. State authorities have always been used to prosecute and punish criminals. In an effort to effectively punish criminals, Virginia’s governor Ralph Northam saw a fault in the system of the death penalty and decided that based on the powers given to him, it was time to end the system of injustice (Herndon, 2021). Essentially, Northam took note of the fact that the death penalty is beginning to be administered based on social, economic, and political factors when it should be considered on a legislative or institutional basis (MacDougall et al., 2018).

2. How did the those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

The individuals or groups affected by the death penalty contributed to its abolition in the state of Virginia in many ways. These groups include the family of the victims, the accuser, the innocent yet wrongly convicted, the state of Virginia, and ultimately, the governor Ralph Northam himself. As Ralph Northam was faced with a blackface scandal, he promised the black community that he would be more vulnerable to their needs by focusing on racial fairness the remaining of his administration, noting the repeal of the death penalty as an example. Even so, the governor recognized that the state could save millions of dollars in legal fees from lengthy appeals by retiring the death penalty.

Additionally, according to a University of Minnesota research, 2.5 percent of co-victims stated they were able to find closure as a result of capital punishment, while 20.1 percent said it did not help them recover (Death Penalty Information Center, 2016). Moreover, nearly half of the 113 individuals executed in the state since 1976 were African American. Because of all the adverse effects associated with its implementation, Ralph Northam decided it was best to abolish the death sentence as it produces more harm than good. The Bible says “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow” (New International Version Bible, 2011, Isaiah 1:17).

3. What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

Although there are several advantages to eliminating the death penalty, there are numerous unforeseen effects. The public's response would be polarized throughout Virginia. Supporters of the death penalty would be outraged at the loss of what they see as an effective crime deterrent and the ultimate form of punishment for victims and their families. Those opposed to the death penalty would be relieved to see the end of what they see as a cruel national institution. Also, the death penalty's abolition may convey the incorrect message to those who are predisposed to committing heinous crimes. From humanitarian grounds, sparing the lives of hardened criminals would only result in more misery for others. Virginia could potentially experience an increase in major crimes, further destabilizing the state.

4. Which group of people are most impacted by these policies?

The death penalty in the United States is a faulty, costly policy marked by bias and mistake. There is racial inequality in the death penalty's administration, including jury selection, sentencing, and other aspects of the system. Individuals with mental illnesses are among the most vulnerable people facing execution. To be wrongfully sentenced to death, a person does not have to be guilty. The high stakes for police, prosecutors, and even judges in obtaining a death sentence can lead to severe legal mistakes that can result in erroneous convictions and death sentences. Today, race still has an impact on who is condemned to death and executed. Capital punishment is meant to be reserved for those who have committed the most serious crimes. Instead, it is imposed on the weakest members of society.

References

Death Penalty Information Center. (2016). STUDIES: Death Penalty Adversely Affects Families of Victims and…. Retrieved from Death Penalty Information Center website: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/studies-death-penalty-adversely-affects-families-of-victims-and-defendants.

Herndon, A. W. (2021, June 14). Black Virginians Took Ralph Northam Back. Neither Has Forgotten. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/us/politics/ralph-northam-virginia.html.

MacDougall, M. J., & Williams, K. D. (2018). THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY SCHEME IS NOT A MODEL FOR STATE REFORM OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT LAWS. American University Law Review, 67(5), 1647–1671. Retrieved from https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.regent.edu/docview/2099848965/fulltextPDF/5BEBAEB70113413APQ/1?accountid=13479.

New International Version Bible. (2011). Zondervan. https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/niv-holy-bible-ebook.

William Morris Econ 290

10/02/2021 1. What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program?

The Duval County School Board operates under the rules established by the board itself (Duvalschools 2021). These rules must go through a vetting process to be accepted. This process includes a 28 day waiting period and a public hearing for all decisions to be discussed. Under the Duval County half-cent sales tax plan the board will have a citizen oversight committee to regulate the usage of all raised funds (teamduval 2021). This committee will answer directly to the board and will have its effectiveness reviewed on an annual basis.

2. How did those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

The groups impacted by the Duval County half-cent sales tax are the residents of Jacksonville Florida. Those residents had a direct say in the passing of the law. This proposal was introduced during the 2020 election. All citizens registered to vote were able to select yes or no on the ballot. The vote was regarded as a landslide victory as 67% of the vote was in favor of the increased proposal (teamduval 2021). Showing that the majority of the impacted population made the decision to support the current law.

3. Which groups of people are most impacted by these decisions or policies?

When reviewing the proposed law there are two main groups, with a tremendous amount of overlap, who are impacted by the proposal. The first group is everyone who purchases taxable products in the county of Duval County. This half-cent sales tax increase has no product exceptions. These funds will take approximately $2 billion over the next 15 years from taxpayers (Mclean 2020). The only way to not be impacted by this policy is to refuse to make any taxable purchases within the county.

The second impacted group is the school-aged children, teachers, and administrators. All funds raised will go towards school maintenance, upgrades, and new facilities (Osiadacz 2020). These policies are designed to create an improved school environment and impact the users heavily. The parents of the school-aged children are impacted by the monetary policies under the law. Under the current law, funds will be directed for safety features and upgrades (Mclean 2020). A safer school environment will certainly provide a tangible impact for not only students but also their parents.

4. What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

Some unintended consequences of the half-cent sales tax include corruption and wasteful spending. Under the proposal, the school board will have outside private project managers undertake the projects during the first several years of the proposal process (teamduval 2021). This can lead to common problems such as siphoning funds for personal use. Or the awarding of contracts based on personal reasons instead of strictly through merit. There can also be problems with the program being used for projects that might benefit members of the citizen oversight committee or school board. While ignoring projects that might benefit others who might be involved with the decision-making process.

References:

1. McLean, J. (2020, November 4). Duval County voters approve half-cent sales tax for schools. WJXT. https://www.news4jax.com/vote-2020/2020/11/03/duval-county-half-cent-sales-tax-for-schools-referendum/.

2. Osiadacz, A. A. (2020, November 16). What will half-cent sales tax mean for big purchases? firstcoastnews.com. https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/education/what-will-half-cent-sales-tax-mean-for-big-purchases/77-d34017cd-68bb-41ef-ab3e-1efa5927f76a.

3. Half-cent sales tax passed. Now what? (2021, December 14). Team Duval. https://www.teamduval.org/2020/12/14/half-cent-sales-tax-passed-now-what/

4. Duval County Schools. (2021). Duval County Schools. https://dcps.duvalschools.org/RHPEARSON

Sean Preston

Dr. Jeff Bajah

ECON 290

2 October 2021

Econ 290: Milestone #3

1. What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, program?

The bipartisan $1.2 trillion dollar Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is currently being held for hostage in the House of Representatives. As of right now, a vote on the bill has been postponed until budget reconciliation can be worked out (Wagner et al., 2021). The vote, which was supposed to take place on the 30th of September, failed to occur after ongoing negotiations within the Democratic caucus proved fruitless (Wagner et al., 2021). On Friday, President Biden spoke to Democrats on Capitol Hill where he told them to prepare to accept a lower number on his $3.5 trillion dollar budget reconciliation (Weisman & Cochrane, 2021). Speaker Pelosi added in a letter to colleagues, “Clearly, the bipartisan infrastructure bill will pass once we have agreement on the reconciliation bill” (Weisman & Cochrane, 2021). After passing the Senate with amendments, the House Progressive Caucus and (now) President Biden began insisting that infrastructure be passed in tandem with budget reconciliation. (Weisman & Cochrane, 2021). After receiving pushback from moderate Senate Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema—who oppose the $3.5 trillion dollar bill and whose votes are crucial to the reconciliation process—House progressives threatened to kill the infrastructure bill when it came up for a vote (Probasco, 2021). Reconciliation rules bypass the filibuster and allow for legislation to be passed by simple majority (Budget Reconciliation: The Basics, 2021). Currently, the Senate is composed of 50 Republicans and 48 Democrats. There are 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats as well as the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. This brings the Democratic total to 51. (U.S. Senate: Party Division, 2021). Senators Manchin and Sinema are therefore essential to the $3.5 trillion dollar gambit but are caught between their desire for infrastructure to pass and their opposition the broader goals of their party. On Thursday, Manchin made a public counteroffer on reconciliation: No more than $1.5 trillion dollars (Solender, 2021). From the perspective of the White House and House progressives, cleaving $2 trillion dollars off the bill after already coming down from $6 trillion dollars is unacceptable and negotiations have stalled. (Weisman & Cochrane, 2021). Now, the President’s insistence that the two must be passed together is further endangering the bill. Historically, infrastructure has been politically popular legislation and gives Congressmembers something to parade before their constituents. Nonetheless, the infrastructure bill now faces an intra-party conflict regarding outsized spending concerns.

2. How did the those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

Based on the numbers from the White House, traditional “road and bridge” infrastructure comprises a mere 20% of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Probasco, 2021). The remainder of the $550 billion dollars in new spending will go to things like high-speed rail, EV infrastructure, and climate change (Probasco, 2021). Since most U.S. infrastructure is privately owned, special interests stand to gain enormous benefits considering the unprecedented size and scope of the bill (Edwards, 2017). This is why, for instance, the bill contains what might better be termed as “partisan easter eggs” rather than infrastructure. The most notable of these wish-list items includes $22 billion dollars in grants for Amtrak, which, by all accounts—is a failed enterprise kept alive my state funding. Other notable items include $25 billion dollars for airports, $65 billion dollars for broadband, and $15 billion for electric charging stations and electric buses (Probasco, 2021). The unprecedented scope of the bill is itself, evidence of the input various special interests have had on the legislation. Congressmembers want to benefit businesses in their states, and the content in the bill clearly reflects that desire. The bill also contains provisions that grant unions significant discretion over the use of federal funds (Kovacs & Vernuccio, 2021).

3. Which groups or people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

The primary impact of the bill, if passed, will be to the benefit of private interests. Granted, other individuals outside of those businesses will likely see benefits too. Nevertheless, it’s worth repeating that infrastructure, for all its popularity, is prone to abuse and waste. Since states and municipalities are much more capable and efficacious spenders of taxpayer dollars, spending for 30,000 feet will invariably result in unneeded and superfluous spending. Moreover, while infrastructure may provide a short-term boost to the economy, the long-run consequences of cronyism and over-spending will impede innovation, reduce competition, and make our economy less dynamic.

4. What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

The biggest impact should infrastructure pass (and God forbid, reconciliation) is inflation. Congressional Budget Office (2021) data shows outlays-to-date for 2021 as $6.8 trillion dollars. Adding another $1.2 trillion dollars is not only irresponsible, but reckless. Assuming both infrastructure and budget reconciliation pass at current numbers, we would be adding another $4.7 trillion dollars to the debt. And then, assuming the top-line number for reconciliation were to come down to $1.5 trillion dollars, both infrastructure and reconciliation would still come in at a hefty $2.7 trillion dollar price tag. According to the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index, there has been a “4.3 percent rise in consumer prices from August 2020 to August 2021, with prices rising 0.4 percent last month alone” (Polumbo, 2021). Moreover, consumers are beginning to see its effects (USDA ERS – Summary Findings, 2021). Additionally, infrastructure, for all the talk to the contrary, is not self-financing. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that the bill would add about $350 billion dollars to the debt (Lobosco & Luhby, 2021). And finally, that the administration is trying to push through both pieces of legislation accompanied by grandiose New Deal and Great Society rhetoric, is above all—evidence of the complete lack of self-awareness among political supporters of the bills. As discussed in the previous milestone, the use of the term “bipartisan” to describe this particular bill somewhat overstates reality. In an evenly split Senate, the amended bill received just 19 Republican votes. Prior to that, the bill passed the House on party lines 221-201, garnering only 2 Republican votes (GovTrack, n.d.). Today, reports suggest that House and Senate Republicans are now reconsidering their support for the bill (Wagner et al., 2021). As for talk of a new “New Deal” or the Great Society, it’s worth noting that since both Johnson and FDR possessed unprecedented legislative majorities during their administrations, there is certainly some level of hubris involved in the notion that either party has a “mandate.”

References

Budget | Congressional Budget Office. (2021, July 1). Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

Budget Reconciliation: The Basics. (2021, August 11). House Budget Committee Democrats. https://budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheet/budget-reconciliation-basics

Edwards, C. (2017, June 1). Who Owns U.S. Infrastructure? CATO Institute. https://www.cato.org/tax-budget-bulletin/who-owns-us-infrastructure

GovTrack. (n.d.-b). H.R. 3684: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. GovTrack.Us. Retrieved

September 20, 2021, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr3684

Lobosco, K., & Luhby, T. (2021, August 23). Infrastructure bill: Here’s what’s in it -CNNPolitics. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.htm

Polumbo, B. (2021, October 1). Inflation Hits 30-Year High According to This Key Metric. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/inflation-hits-30-year-high-according-to-this-key-metric/

Probasco, J. (2021, August 25). What’s Happening With the Two ($1.2 T/$3.5 T) Infrastructure Bills. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/here-s-what-s-in-the-usd1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-passed-by-the-senate-5196817

Solender, A. (2021, September 30). Manchin Sets $1.5 Trillion Ceiling For Democrats’ Reconciliation Bill. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/09/30/manchin-sets-15-trillion-ceiling-for-democrats-reconciliation-bill/?sh=5558a5247d7b

USDA ERS - Summary Findings. (2021, September 24). USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings/

U.S. Senate: Party Division. (2021, January 28). United States Senate. https://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm

Vernuccio, F., & Kovacs, T. (2021, September 4). Billions in spending, hundreds of millions in grants — union future influence in the infrastructure bill. TheHill. https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/570833-billions-in-spending-hundreds-of-millions-in-grants-union-future-influence-in?rl=1

Wagner, M., Macaya, M., Mahtani, M., Rocha, V., & Alfonso, F. (2021, October 2). Live Updates: Infrastructure bill vote and Congress negotiations. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/congress-infrastructure-bill-vote-10-01-21/index.html

Weisman, J., & Cochrane, E. (2021, October 2). Biden Pulls Back a Vote on the Infrastructure Bill. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/biden-democrats-infrastructure.html

Kenneth Sullivan

Professor Bajah

Econ 290

1 October 2021

Milestone Three

What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, and program?

There is not a specific organization that influenced this. The Governor of Virginia (Ralph Northam) decided it would be best. As mentioned previously, he did not like the idea of the death penalty because it could be seen as cruel and also many innocent people have died (Gabriel). The call to end the death penalty is just that. Not having a death penalty would mean that people would be put in jail for life without the possibility of parole instead. It seems like a tough choice but Gov. Northam says it is the best choice.

How did those impacted by this decision have input into the decision?

There are many people who have been impacted by the Death Penalty in Virginia. Since 1608 Virginia has sentenced 1,389 people to death. Across the country every 1 in 10 people who have been sentenced have been innocent (Dujardin). That is far too high of an error rate. One wrongful death alone is wrong, 10% is atrocious. For example, say you have 10 apples and one of them will cause you to die. Odds are that you would not eat any of the apples. Now let's say 10% of all apples in Virginia were contaminated. The government would automatically block the sale of apples right away because innocent people would inevitably die. The same is true with capital punishment. Innocent people are convicted and innocent people die. The Virginia Government felt impacted by this decision and realized that could not make the situation right but at a minimum they could alleviate the tension caused over the past 400 years.

Which groups or people are mostly impacted by these decisions or policies?

The Death Penalty being abolished had impct on many people. The first people would be the two men in Virginia who were awaiting their death. Since the law was passed their sentences were converted into life without the possibility of parole. The next people this impacts is the victim's family and friends. When a crime that calls for the death penalty is commited and a person is conviced the family wants justice. Unfortunetly, families may want the wrong-doer to receive capital punishment. Now, families and communities may feel like the wrong-doer is not getting punishment that is deserved based upon the gruesome actions. In the case of one of the men who had his sentence overturned because of the law the victims famly reached out and said tat they are fine with him not recieving capital punishment anymore. Now he is forced to stay in jail and think about his actions. It should be noted that this bill was thought about for a long time before it was signed by the governor. The pros and cons of capital punishment were weighed and the Virginia Governement ultimately felt like it was a good idea to abolish capital punishment.

What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies?

Some unintended consequences from abolishing capital punishment include possible higher acts of crime and pushback from police. Some people may want to commit a crime and they would realize that the death penalty was abolished. Some people have been in and out of jail for years and are ok with being in jail for life. This may lead to not a higher rate of crime but more gruesome crimes. There has been a great pushback by police. They believe that capital punishment should be paired with officer related deaths. “It’s a huge slap in the face to our families and to the brave men and women in law enforcement in this state and in this country that selflessly serve and protect every single day,” Michelle Dermyer, the widow of Virginia State Police Trooper Chad Phillip Dermyer, told a Senate committee” (Dujardin). The debate was taken on the senate floor and even though many agree, the state did not see their one reason being enough to not pass the new law.

Works Cited

Dujardin, P. (2021, January 31). Since 1608, Virginia has executed more people than any other state. it may now abolish the death penalty. pilotonline.com. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://www.pilotonline.com/news/crime/dp-nw-virginia-death-penalty-20210131-gs3b423zcjchddnfzpmfgxuoea-story.html.

Gabriel, T. (2021, February 4). Virginia, shifting left fast, moves closer to abolishing death penalty. The New York Times. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/us/politics/virginia-death-penalty-northam.html.