ECON 290: Milestone example: California plans to pay people with addiction to stay sober

Kristin Loewen

ECON 290

Dr. Jeff Bajah

September 4th, 2022

The Economy and the CARES Act

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

The organization of the CARES Act appears to be congress itself. The policy was influenced by the need to stimulate cash flow into the US economy during times of crisis (Congress, 2020).

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 compromises of the CARES Act primarily consist of constant extensions of the Act beyond its original period of three weeks (Congress, 2020). Initially, the act was supposed to be suspended after the first round of lockdowns (Congress, 2020). However, it was repassed into law again in 2021 (Congress, 2021). Initially, the bill began with bipartisan support and passed quickly through Congress, however, it diminished after the bill continued to be passed (Saad, 2021).

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

The voters had input into this decision by their vote and held interests in Congress.

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

The groups of people most impacted by the policy were supposed to be the families that were out of work. Chris Bell, partner at Moss Adams Healthcare Practice states that “The CARES Act is intended to help individuals and businesses access cash flow during these difficult times” (Bell, 2020). The bill then was formed to stimulate cash flow within the U.S. economy during the lockdowns. It was to pass to families who were out of work (Bell, 2020). The bill also gave money to museums and art institutions for the initial bill and was given an estimated 100 million dollars (Congress, 2020).

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

According to a study done by William and Mary, some of the unintended consequences of the CARES Act would be civilians borrowing money from the government in order to simply make bank (Hojnicki, 2022). All one had to do to apply for the CARES Act was to fill out a form claiming that the lockdowns had negatively impacted a business or income (Hojnicki, 2022). In order to prevent these steep sums were enforced near the end of the lockdowns (Hojnicki, 2022). Another question that this study attempted to answer was what people would do with the money they received from the CARES Act (Hojnicki, 2022). They found that most people would save their money, invest it, or pay off other debts (Hojnicki, 2022). If the investments went well it would work to pay back the CARES Act, but if not, it would “result in a very expensive bailout for stockholders” (Hojnicki, 2022). This study was conducted to hopefully stave off unintended consequences in the future (Hojnicki, 2022).

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)

Yes, it was an indirect vote of the people through congress.

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

I am not quite sure yet.

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?

Initially, the bill began with bipartisan support and passed quickly through Congress, however, it diminished after the bill continued to be passed (Saad, 2021). The longer the bill remained in circulation the more split down partisan lines it became (Saad, 2021).

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

I am not quite sure yet.

References

Bell, C. (2020). 11 Ways the CARES Act Impacts Health Care Organizations. N.p.: Mossadams. Retrieved from https://www.mossadams.com/articles/2020/04/cares-act-impacts-health-care

CARES Act, H.R 748, 116th Cong. (2020). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748.

Hojnicki, K. (2022). Exploring the unintended consequences of the CARES Act. Williamsburg, VA: W&M News. Retrieved from https://news.wm.edu/2022/01/12/exploring-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-cares-act/

Saad, L. (2021, March 26). COVID-19 Aid Package Both Popular and Controversial. Gallup. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/342041/covid-aid-package-simultaneously-popular-controversial.aspx

Jacob Neer

Political Economy

Dr. Jeff Bajah

September 4th, 2022

The Parental Rights in Education Act

Introduction

The Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by critics, was a bill that was introduced by the Florida Legislature and signed into Law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022. The most controversial piece of legislation in recent Florida history, it outlined several new guidelines for K-3 education, including preventing classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity during these years or instruction on sexuality and gender identity in a manner that is not "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students" in any grade and for prohibiting schools from restricting parental access to their student's education and health records.

Concept Questions

1.) What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

The bill has two main policy points: one preventing the discussion of sexual material in class of young students, and two, giving parents more control in the education of their children. The first part of the bill states, “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” Next, in terms of empowering parents, the bill says, “At the beginning of the school year, each school district shall notify parents of each healthcare service offered at their student’s school and the option to withhold consent or decline any specific service. Parental consent to a health care service does not waive the parent’s right to access his or her student’s educational or health records or to be notified about a change in his or her student’s services or monitoring as provided by this paragraph” (askflagler.com).

2.) Are those rules effectively enforced?

The law took place at the beginning of the 2022-2023 school year, so it is too early to see how effective it will be.

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?

There is a reality disconnect among a large portion of the population about what the bill is in a negative sense. For example, many say that the bill discriminates against LGBTQ members. However, the bill not only limits discussions of same sex relationships, but also relationships between members of the opposite sex. Chris Golon writes in Ask Flagger, “In standard practice, ‘sexual orientation’ refers to which genders an individual finds romantic interest in, and ‘gender identity’ refers to whether an individual prefers to be referred to as male, female, non-binary, or other denotation of gender” (askflagger.com).

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.

In the wake of the 2020 racial protests, there has been a self-declared “war on wokeness” among the right. Things like critical race theory and discussions on gender identity were frequently promoted among major institutions. This bill aimed to draw a line in the sand against such things

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

Due to the controversial nature of the bill, there has been an unusual number of special interest groups involved. Opponents include LGBTQ rights groups all the way up to Disney. In fact, Disney released a statement condemning the bill, which eventually led to Governor DeSantis stripping Disney of its “Special District” status. The bill has also survived all legal challenges by special interest groups and will certainly remain intact as law.

Why is it important to learn about this topic?

It is important to learn about this topic because discussed are some of the most pressing issues facing the country. Discussions surrounding how to respond to some of the culture war issues will be around for some time and could potentially shape the future of the nation. In addition, this bill was arguably the most controversial bill of 2022, so it is important to be informed of current events.

Milestone 1:

Introduction to Ohio State Senate Bill 215

Joshua Swigart

Regent University

September 4, 2022

Introduction to Topic

Senate Bill 215 passed the house 58-36 on March 2nd, 2022 (Perry and Gaines, 2022, par. 30). Ohio state governor, Mike DeWine, signed the bill into law on March 14th, and the law went into effect on June 13th, 2022. Senate Bill 215 is more commonly referred to as “constitutional Carry.” It means what most would gather from the name. Under constitutional carry, those who are 21 years old and who also meet the other requirements associated with getting a concealed carry permit are able to conceal carry without a permit. Litton reports that the passing of this bill made Ohio the 23rd state to allow citizens to carry a concealed handgun without a permit (2022, para. 3). All the rules about where you can and cannot take a gun still apply, and people can still take the CCW training course if they wish to; however, Individuals 21 years or older that are also qualifying adults can conceal carry without a permit through Senate Bill 215.

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding this policy?

a. Rules guiding eligibility for Conceal Carry

i. Is aged 21 or older

ii. Has no conviction for or has no pending prosecution for any felony, any domestic violence, any drug offense (other than a minor misdemeanor), negligent assault, or falsification of concealed handgun license

iii. Has no conviction for (including attempted) or pending misdemeanor offense within the past three years of violence, which are the following offenses: Assault, Aggravated Menacing, Menacing by Stalking, Menacing, Arson, Inciting Violence, Riot, Inducing Panic, Endangering Children, Intimidation of attorney, victim, or witness to a criminal case, or Escape

iv. Has no conviction within the past five years for two or more charges of either Assault or Negligent Assault, or attempted Assault or attempted Negligent Assault

v. Has no conviction for Resisting Arrest in the past 10 years

vi. Has no pending (from any state) Civil Protection Order or Temporary Protection Order

vii. Is not a fugitive, including suspected of or convicted of a crime, aware of being sought by the police, and eluding capture

viii. Has not been adjudicated as a mental defective or mental incompetence, committed to a mental institution, found by a court to be a mentally ill person subject to a court order, or involuntary patient other than for the purpose of observation

ix. Does not have a suspended CCW license

x. Is not dishonorably discharged from U.S. Armed Forces

xi. Is not drug dependent or in danger of drug dependence, or chronic alcoholic

xii. Has not renounced U.S. Citizenship; is legally or lawfully in the U.S. if not a U.S. citizen; is admitted under a nonimmigrant visa and was admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes. Or has a hunting license/permit or as an official representative of a foreign government.

Source: Montgomery County prosecutor’s Office

2. Are those rules effectively enforced? Yes.

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 believe that could be the case for individuals who oppose the policy.

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.

a. This policy is supposed to properly enact people’s rights as interpreted in the constitution by those who drafted and ratified this policy

5. Is there a special interest involved? Who? Are they successful?

a. The most interested party would be those who are looking to conceal carry handguns, who do not already have their CCW (particularly those that are about to turn 21).

b. Another interested party would be those who are certified to train others themselves to get the CCW. If they rely on such certifying abilities for income, they certainly have a large interest.

Why is it important to learn about this topic? 12

The issues revolving around the Constitutional Carry policy are of grave importance because they involve interpreting what the founders viewed, as seen in the constitution of the United States, as the right for Americans to bear arms. Proponents of Constitutional Carry are trying to stand up for others' rights to bear arms; however, many interpret the constitution or at least disagree with it much differently. Gun rights is a heavily legislated and debated topic. Schaeffer writes, “roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019” (2021, para. 14). With half of the nation favoring stricter gun laws, it seems interesting how nearly half of the states are now allowing Constitutional Carry. What do Americans think about their rights, and how do they interpret them? I believe those are some questions that make learning more about this topic important.

References

Litton, Shannon. (2022). Ohio’s ‘Constitutional Carry’ law has gone into effect. WSAZ News Channel. https://www.wsaz.com/2022/06/13/ohios-constitutional-carry-law-has-gone-into-effect/

Perry, Parker and Gaines, Jim. (2022, June 13). Ohio’s New Concealed Carry Law Takes Effect: What to Know. Governing. https://www.governing.com/now/ohios-new-concealed-

carry-law-takes-effect-what-to-know

Schaeffer, Katherine. (2021, September 13). Key facts about Americans and guns. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

Haley,

I am interested to learn more about HB 1077! The subject of paternity under the law is a criminally ignored subject, and it has left many men vulnerable to being taken advantage of. It makes me excited to see that there is progress being made towards reform on this subject. For example, I am glad that providing misleading information regarding paternity on both sides will be punished as a felony. I look forward to seeing the other milestones of your project! Good luck!

Kaleb

Logan,

I am not sure that I agree that the answer to the drug problem in America is the mass decriminalization of drug possession in the United States. Mainly, this is because I believe all this will accomplish is the enabling drug-addicted people to feed their addiction without any consequences. Furthermore, evidence from Oregon seems to support this position, as, after the passing of Measure 110 in Oregon, drug addiction has not seen any positive results in reducing drug addiction. However, I am not unreceptive to alternative solutions, especially if it actually helps people kick such a deadly habit! I will be interested in seeing how your paper progresses and the different sources you will use to support your position. Best of luck!

Kaleb

Milestone 1:

Introduction to Project:

The Actual Impact on Inflation of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Kaleb King

Regent University

September 4, 2022

Introduction

On the 16th of July, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, also known as H.R. 5376, was passed into law by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Inflation Reduction Act (I.R.A.) was a massive omnibus bill that was tens of thousands of pages long. But in a press release authorized by the White House, the main goals of the bill was to “create clean energy jobs, make the tax code fairer, revitalize the American manufacturing industry, lower healthcare costs, as well as lower inflation.” (White House, 2022). The bill’s primary sponsor was Rep. John A. Yarmouth (D) of Kentucky’s 3rd District, and the bill was split down party lines in both the House and the Senate, with all Democrats voting Yea and all Republicans voting Nay (Office of the Clerk, 2022).

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

   1. The standard precedent for the creation of a bill and its journey into public law was followed during the lifetime of this bill. It was introduced to the House on Sept. 27, 2021, by its sponsor Rep. Yarmouth., passed in the House on Nov. 2021, passed in the Senate on July 8th, 2022, and was signed into public law by the President of the United States, Joe Biden.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

   1. Yes.

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?

   1. Yes, I believe so. The bill promises a lot, but such massive bills tend to have quite a few unintended side effects and failures that are revealed as time draws on and there is a chance to actually measure the effect the bill has over time.

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. Collectively, this bill is supposed to reduce inflation while also revitalizing the American manufacturing industry. Especially the clean energy sector of the American economy. However, the bill has not been in effect long enough to actually determine the real-world effects of the I.R.A.

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

   1. Clearly there are special interests involved in the creation of this bill. The most obvious intended recipient of special interests are manufacturers who supply things such as solar panels, windmills, and other means of producing green energy, as there are massive tax cuts, benefits, and other such pork included for them explicitly in the bill.

   2. Manufacturers of electric cars will be another recipient of tax cuts and other benefits that are explicitly mentioned in the bill.

Why it is Important to Learn about this Topic?

It is important to learn about this bill, especially the impact it has on inflation because it is one of the largest spending packages in the history of Congress. If it fails to accomplish what it hopes to accomplish, it will likely go down as a major cause of any economic crisis that might befall the United States in the future. Furthermore, by studying the bill, we might be able to get a general idea of what industries might be most heavily impacted by the spending in this bill.

Project Outline

1. Introduction

2. What the Bill Attempts to Accomplish In:

   1. Clean Energy Manufacturing

   2. Clean Energy Consumption

   3. The Tax Code

   4. Inflation Reduction

3. What the Bill Actually Accomplishes

   1. Clean Energy Manufacturing

   2. Clean Energy Consumption

   3. The Tax Code

   4. Inflation Reduction

4. Thoughts on the Successfulness of the I.R.A.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations.

Sources I Expect to Use

1. Congress.gov

   1. This is the site that contains the actual text of the I.R.A, as well as the full summary of the bill provided by the Congressional Research Service. Therefore, I anticipate I will be using this site a lot in order to review the actual wording of the bill.

2. whitehouse.gov

   1. This is where almost all of the press releases and fact sheets currently available regarding the I.R.A. have been published, so this is where I will likely turn to find much of the information regarding what the government wants the I.R.A. to accomplish.

References

Actions - H.R.5376 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Inflation reduction ... (n.d.). Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376/actions

H.R.5376 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Inflation reduction act of 2022. (n.d.). Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376

Roll call 385, Bill Number: H. R. 5376, 117th Congress, 1st session. Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. (2021, November 19). Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021385

Roll call 420, Bill Number: H. R. 5376, 117th Congress, 2nd session. Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. (2022, August 12). Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022420

The United States Government. (2022, January 31). The White House. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/

Milestone 1

Logan Reichelt

College of Arts & Sciences, Regent University

ECON 290: Political Economy

Dr. Bajah

September 4, 2022

Milestone 1: Drug Policy Reform Act of 2021

Introduction

The Drug Policy Reform Act of 2021 is widely considered by many, especially the sponsors of the bill, to be the first step in ending the War on Drugs that was declared decades ago by President Richard Nixon. This domestic conflict has been a leading subject within criminal justice reform for years due to its effects on overpopulation within prisons, harsh sentencing, and lack of emphasis on rehabilitation. The drug problem within America cannot be solved by mass incarceration and retribution. Individuals that spiral into the unforgiving trap of drug addiction will be able to rejoin society only after being effectively treated. The primary goals of the DPRA of 2021, or H.R. 4020, are to decriminalize the personal possession of drugs, expunge and seal records of those charged with drug possession crimes, and provide relief for those who are currently incarcerated on the basis of drug charges. The bill was proposed by U.S. representatives Bonnie Watson-Coleman (D-NJ) and Cori Bush (D-MO) on June 17th, 2021 in response to many of the issues described earlier. The bill was inspired by and modeled after Measure 110 in the state of Oregon, which also decriminalized drug possession and prioritized health advancements to encourage rehabilitation (Straughan 2021).

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

   1. Those found guilty of possession of illegal substances should not be incarcerated and heavily punished. Instead, a “health-based approach” should be taken, as it prioritizes rehabilitation and better prepares the individual for reentry into society. Therefore, the possession of drugs would be decriminalized.

   2. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be made the new regulatory service regarding the classification of substances, rather than the U.S. Attorney General.

   3. Those convicted of drug crimes would have their records expunged and sealed to allow for easier reintegration into the workforce, as well as reassimilation into life in general.

   4. Drug convicts will be given the resources and responsibilities to better themselves and become mentally and physically healthy once again.

   5. The bill has passed through several different committees, but still has not made significant progress within the legislative process.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

   1. Not yet, the bill has only been introduced; it has yet to pass the House or the Senate.

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?

   1. Yes. The Representatives that proposed the bill offer several thoughtful solutions, but they are not completely realistic. Recidivism rates are very high amongst convicted criminals, even with the use of rehabilitation programs. Decriminalization is helpful in reducing prison overpopulation, but it will result in there being an abundance of drugs readily available on the streets. If this bill were to pass, the government would struggle to regulate and maintain control of the amount of product that flows throughout both the smallest neighborhoods and the largest cities. Strict laws will need to be enforced regarding possession with the intent to distribute.

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. The policy intends to reduce the severity of legal action against drug users. It also seeks to create anti-discriminatory measures so that those formerly convicted of drug charges can easily access government assistance and apply for jobs.

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

   1. The primary special interest group would be drug users, who will benefit greatly from the proposed bill.

   2. Psychological professionals will also benefit from the bill due to its increased emphasis on rehabilitative strategies.

   3. Corrections facilities may also serve as a special interest group, as many are so overwhelmed with prisoners that they can barely function in a safe and effective manner.

Why is it important to learn this topic?

Drug use has been a serious problem in our nation for several decades. It has destroyed cities, neighborhoods, families, and individuals. We, as a society, must be educated on this topic so that we can better understand the best strategies to combat drug addiction and distribution. The problem is larger than any one bill can fix, but small steps must be taken to make progress toward a brighter future.

Project Outline

1. Introduction H.R. 4020

2. Context

   1. Historical context

   2. Modern context

      1. Prison overcrowding

      2. Drug use statistics

3. Interested Parties

   1. Drug users

   2. Psychological services

   3. Corrections systems

   4. Drug distributors (Dispensaries)

   5. Elected officials

4. Final Analysis and Conclusion

References

Straughan, D. (2021, June 17). The Drug Policy Reform Act would fundamentally change US Drug Policy. Interrogating Justice. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://interrogatingjustice.org/ending-mass-incarceration/drug-policy-reform-act/

Sutton, M. (2021, June 17). U.S. House Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman & cori bush introduce federal bill to decriminalize drug possession, replace with health-centered approach. Drug Policy Alliance. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/06/us-house-representatives-bonnie-watson-coleman-cori-bush-introduce-federal

Text - H.R.4020 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Drug policy reform act of ... (2021, June 17). Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4020/text

Haley Sumner

ECON 290/Political Economy

Dr. Jeff Bajah

Blog Post 1

04 September 2022

For our project, I have decided to write about the proposed bill named HB 1077 Paternity; genetic tests to determine parentage, relief from paternity, certain actions, penalty introduced by Virginia Delegate A. C. Cordoza. The summary of this bill reads: “ Paternity; genetic tests to determine parentage; relief from paternity; certain actions; penalty. Provides that any person who knowingly gives any false information or makes any false statements for the purpose of determining paternity is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The bill further requires an alleged father of a child be informed of his option to request the administering of a genetic test prior to being entered as the father on a birth certificate. The bill further states that, in addition to any other available legal relief, an individual relieved of paternity who previously paid support pursuant to a child support order entered in conjunction with the set-aside paternity determination may file an action against the other party for repayment of any such support,” (Virginia’s Legislative Information System, 2022). I chose this public policy because I believe in its passing and I think it will be a major step in preserving justice. A bill such as this will deter people from claiming false paternity and make them face felony charges for collecting child support from a person that is not the paternal parent. I think that allowing an individual who has been relieved of paternity to file for repayment of child support from the other party is fair and just. A bill like this should certainly be in place.

Resources

Division of Legislative Automative Systems. (2022). 2023 Session. Legislative Information System. Retrieved from https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231+sum+HB1077

Ashley Taylor

Political Economy

Dr. Jeff Bajah

September 4th, 2022

U.S. COVID-19 Fiscal Response

Milestone 1

For my topic, I decided to choose the united states fiscal policy that was used in response to COVID-19.

Introduction:

The fiscal policy in response to COVID-19 happened in 3 waves, each aiming to support the economy to stay afloat in a time of uncertainty. The government gave out stimulus to many different groups including businesses and families. So the fiscal policy for COVID-19 aimed to help income and consumption (Dean, P., 2022). Despite the fiscal spending helping those laid off, there were also some downfalls. Shortages, inflation, and long-term debt are the consequences of this fiscal policy(Dean, P., 2022). However, the federal fiscal response was necessary for the economy's health. Restaurants, movie theaters, theme parks, schools, etc. were all closed down. And as we all know, COVID-19 caused a lot of economic and health distress. We were in the middle of fighting a new virus while trying to keep the economy running. This meant that businesses shutting down due to health concerns raised a number of problems. One of those problems was that people lost their jobs because everyone was forced to stay quarantined. In fact, it was over 23 million unemployed U.S. workers (Dean, P., 2022).

Why is it relevant?

Understanding how the government fiscal policy affects the economy is important to understand because it affects the overall health of the economy. Government spending can affect our spending because taxes can be raised to pay off debt. In particuarly COVID-19 was a good example of how the government uses spending to maintain the health of the economy during a crisis.

Geographical Location: United States

Concept Questions:

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy? I do not know

2. Are those rules effectively enforced? I do not know

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?

No there is not a romance

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

The collective action is to make sure the economy does not crash due to the virus shutting down institutions because of health concerns. The policy helped those in financial distress.

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

I do not think there is

Sources

Dean, P. (2022). The unprecedented federal fiscal policy response to the COVID-19 ... The Unprecedented Federal Fiscal Policy Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on State Budgets. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Fiscal-Stimulus-May2022.pdf?x71849

Kristin Loewen

Professor Bajah

ECON 290

4 September 2021

Milestone One

The CARES Act or also known as Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was passed in 2020 (Congress, 2020). This bill responds to the COVID-19 pandemic to keep small businesses afloat amidst the lockdowns (Congress, 2020). The bill sends money for eight weeks to businesses to help stimulate the economy and keep it afloat (Congress, 2020). It is still in effect two years after the initial round of closures. However, this bill could also do the opposite of what it was designed to do. If enacted long-term it could place the United States Government into deeper debt (Kaplan, Moll, Violante, 2020). The United States is seeing this now not two years after the bill was enacted. According to the University of Chicago, the CARES Act was a 2.2 trillion-dollar aid package. Kaplan, Moll, and Violante also argue, “The authors find that programs under the CARES Act succeeded in mitigating economic welfare losses by around 20% on average, while leaving the cumulative death count effectively unchanged” (Kaplan, Moll, Violante, 2020). This is significant because what the bill attempted to prevent seemed to have failed.

What are the relevant rules for this bill?

Initially, the CARES Act was only supposed to stimulate the economy for eight weeks at the start of the COVID lockdowns. However, even in 2022, the CARES Act is still active within the U.S. economy. The lockdowns did indeed last longer than originally intended, but they are now lifted.

Are the rules effectively enforced?

• No, I do not believe so. The original CARES Act bill was a stimulus package of eight weeks. It has continued for two years.

Is there a Romance- reality disconnect within the policy?

• I believe so.

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.

• The collective action policy was to stimulate the economy during the pandemic. It was made to help support small businesses and families amid unemployment and business closures (Congress, 2020).

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

• A. The special interests involved could be small businesses and families that initially would have been successful. However, a taxation increase will prove to be possible (Joyce & Prabowo, 2020). Overall taxes will cancel out any benefits that the “special interests” would have gotten.

• B. Public art centers such as the Smithsonian got 25 million dollars in COVID relief alone (Congress, 2020). Other art centers and museums got aid packages of the same (and in some cases more). For example, the Commodity Credit Corporation got 14 billion dollars (about $43 per person in the US) in aid from the CARES Act (Congress, 2020).

• The FBI got 20 million dollars to help aid in COVID-19 efforts both domestically and internationally (Congress, 2020).

Why is it important to learn about this topic?

It is important to learn about this topic because the Bill was supposed to aid in temporarily relieving stress from the economy that was caused by the first wave of lockdowns (Congress, 2020). However, the damages of this bill to the United States’ economy overall could be dire. The U.S. can expect tax increases over the next few years (Joyce & Prabowo, 2020). The rounds of checks that U.S citizens received started at a good foundation to stimulate economic growth. However, the places the money went do not seem to have actually been executed effectively overall.

Project Outline

1. Introduce CARES Act.

1. Consider the context surrounding this issue.

A. What is the status quo?

B. Has public opinion on this issue evolved?

III. Who are the Interested Parties?

A. Small Busnisses and Families

B. Art Centers and Museums

C. The FBI

IV. Final evaluation and Recommendations

References

CARES Act, H.R 748, 116th Cong. (2020). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748.

Joyce, P. G., & Suryo Prabowo, A. (2020, September 18). Government responses to the coronavirus in the United States: Immediate remedial actions, rising debt levels and Budgetary Hangovers. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-07-2020-0111

Kaplan, G., Moll, B., & Violante, G. L. (2020). The Impact of the CARES Act on Economic Welfare.

Milestone 1:

Introduction to the FOSTA-SESTA Package

Nicole Dentel

Regent University

September 4, 2022

Milestone 1: Introduction to FOSTA-SESTA Package

Introduction to Topic

On April 11, 2018, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Acts (SESTA) and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) passed in both the U.S. Senate and House and became law as the “FOSTA-SESTA package”. This bill package seeks to amend Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, commonly known as the Communications Decency Act of 1996. By amending this act, the SESTA-FOSTA package no longer provides legal protection for websites that unlawfully facilitate sex traffickers by advertising unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims (Library of Congress, 2018). Though the bill package’s primary sponsor was republican U.S. Representative Ann Wagner, the FOSTA-SESTA package received initial bipartisan support from U.S. Senators, the Internet Association, and companies such as 21st Century Fox and Oracle. Though, the bill package faced criticism from the U.S. Department of Justice, members of Congress, and advocacy groups due to free speech and difficult prosecution claims.

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

a. The rules of procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate guide the development of this policy. Since the FOSTA-SESTA package (first introduced as H.R. 1865) started in the House of Representatives, it must pass through relevant House committees with a majority vote. Next, it must survive the same process in the Senate and eventually be signed by the President of the United States to become law.

b. Currently, the FOSTA-SESTA package became Public Law No: 115-164 as of April 11, 2018. H.R. 1865 has successfully moved through the House Judiciary Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill package now known as the “FOSTA-SESTA package” passed in the House with a majority vote on February 27, 2018, and the Senate on March 21, 2018, with only senators Wyden and Paul voting against it. The bill signed into law by President Donald Trump on April 11, 2018.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced? Yes.

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? Not really. While there is speculation that the bill fails to address sex trafficking and only endangers sex workers, the bill itself realistically addresses the child sex advertising problems that comes with websites like Backpage (Donovan, 2020).

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.

a. This policy is supposed to prevent websites from facilitating sex trafficking and allow victims of sex trafficking to purse a course of action against interactive computer service providers.

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

a. The first interested party is the sex trafficking victim who will have the opportunity to pursue a course of action against the websites who advertised sex trafficking practices. Additionally, the people that the victim are closely connected with will be affected by this policy since they have an interest in the victim’s well-being.

b. Corporations also have a vested interest in this policy. This policy disrupts the online sex worker trade, so corporations, especially in-person ones, will be able have an advantage over the online corporations who are obstructed by this new system, such as the Internet Association. This advantage provides another opportunity for rent-seeking behavior.

Why is it important to learn about this topic?

This piece of legislation has caused quite a controversy despite sex trafficking being a universally despised practice and thus, provides an opportunity for public choice analysis. The FOSTA-SESTA package has sprouted disagreements between senators, advocacy groups and corporations (Strassner, 2018). Those politicians who are disagreeing on this policy will have possible voters looking to them to see if their congressmen and women too agree with their passionate stances, and those stances will affect whether they get elected yet again. Additionally, this policy has major economic implications since its passage disrupts the online sex worker trade. This restriction on websites put in place with this policy extends the bureaucratic arm of the U.S. government and gives other corporations the opportunity to engage in rent-seeking behaviors.

Project Outline

I. Introduce FOSTA-SESTA Package

II. Context surrounding the FOSTA-SESTA Package & Online Sex Trafficking

a. What consensus on the bill before its passing?

b. Has public opinion on this issue evolved since the bill passed?

III. Who are the interested parties?

a. Sex Trafficking Victims

b. Elected Officials – effects election prospects

c. Corporations – competition for advertising/possible rent-seeking

d. U.S. Department of Justice

e. Sex Workers – economic growth stifled due to disruption of income

f. Advocacy Groups

IV. Final evaluation and recommendations

References

Donovan, E. M. (2020). Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act: A Shield for Jane Doe. Connecticut Law Review, 52(1), 85–122.

Library of Congress. (2018, April 11). Text - H.R.1865 - Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017: 115th Congress (2017-2018). Congress.gov. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865/text

Strassner, E. (2018, March 23). Why some lawmakers opposed an anti-sex trafficking Bill. Medill News Service. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2018/03/23/why-some-lawmakers-opposed-an-anti-sex-trafficking-bill/#sthash.HuN7dfxq.dpbs

Milestone 1:

Rhode Island’s Safe Injection Facilities Pilot Program

Hannah Waters

Regent University

September 4, 2022

Milestone 1: Rhode Island’s Safe Injection Facilities Pilot Program

Introduction to Topic

The use of illegal injection drugs has plagued the U.S. for decades. Injection drug users (IDUs) face an extreme risk of contracting AIDS, hepatitis, HIV, and a number of other debilitating diseases, and overdose deaths—particularly fentanyl-related overdose deaths—have skyrocketed in recent years (Odabaş, para. 1-5, 2022). Such dangers arise from the scarcity of sterile injection equipment and IDUs’ refusal to utilize preventative services due to a fear of the U.S. justice system (Beletsky et. al, p. 231, 2008). In light of rising rates of illness and overdose deaths in Rhode Island, Governor Daniel McKee (D) signed Senate Bill 0016, the “Harm Reduction Center Advisory Committee and Pilot Program,” into law in July, 2021. Rhode Island's new policy authorizes safe injection facilities (SIFs) across the states—government run facilities that provide sterile, safe sanctuary locations where IDUs can bring and inject their illegal substances. The pilot program began on March 1, 2022, and it will end on March 1, 2024.

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

   1. All of Rhode Island's SIFs are overseen by an advisory committee. The advisory committee consists of the Director of the Department of Health, representatives from the Rhode Island Medical Society, the Attorney General, representatives from the Hospital Association of Rhode Island, law enforcement officials, individuals who have witnessed a family member experience a fatal drug overdose, and other interested parties.

   2. SIFs can only be instituted in towns or cities in which the SIF operators have received municipal authorization and approval.

   3. Healthcare professionals cannot administer illegal substances; however, they must be present in all SIFs to supervise injections to ensure safe consumption.

   4. Supplies for SIFs are funded by the municipality’s taxpayer dollars.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

   1. Yes.

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?

   1. Yes. Supporters of this policy place a heavy emphasis on the projected decline in illnesses and overdoses, but they largely neglect to acknowledge the policy’s negative impacts. Rhode Island creates an opportunity cost by pouring resources into the safe injection sites instead of drug rehabilitation centers, prolonging the abuse of illegal drugs, and Rhode Island creates a conflict between state powers and federal efforts in the war on drugs.

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 is designed to reduce blood-borne illnesses and drug overdose deaths for those taking illegal drugs.

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

   1. The first interested party are the illegal drug users who will have access to clean, safe facilities and tools due to the policy. Those close to the illegal drug users—family, friends, etc.—also have an interest due to their concern for the well-being of those using the facilities.

   2. Medical suppliers, particularly injection needle suppliers, are another special interest group. This policy provides a greater market for production and sale of their products.

   3. Yet another group with a special interest in this policy would be community members and lobby groups concerned for public health and the spread of diseases.

Why is it important to learn about this topic?

It is important for both politicians and their constituents to carefully analyze the decision and outcome of Rhode Island’s SIF pilot program. As seen in the recent debate in California over Senate Bill 57 and the running SIFs in Pennsylvania and New York, the issue of SIFs is rising across the nation. Politicians must evaluate the positive and negative effects of SIFs on both local communities and their electoral prospects. Most politicians are well aware of lobbyists on either side of the issue; however, very little data exists regarding public opinion of SIF (Socia et al., p. 731, 2021). Constituents should carefully analyze this program to determine whether there are adverse outcomes not outlined in the Rhode Island government’s romance-laden description of its SIF policy.

Project Outline

1. Introduction to Rhode Island’s SIFs Pilot Program

2. The Context

   1. Rising issue of illness and overdose among IDUs

   2. Details of pilot program

   3. Statistics gathered from current Rhode Island SIFs

3. The Interested Parties

   1. IDUs and loved ones

   2. Medical suppliers

   3. Elected officials

   4. Community members

   5. Lobby groups

4. Evaluation and recommendations

References

Beletsky, Davis, C. S., Anderson, E., & Burris, S. (2008). The Law (and Politics) of Safe Injection Facilities in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 98(2), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.103747.

Odabaş, Meltem. (2022). Concern about drug addiction has declined in U.S., even in areas where fatal overdoses have risen the most. Pew Research Center. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/31/concern-about-drug-addiction-has-declined-in-u-s-even-in-areas-where-fatal-overdoses-have-risen-the-most/.

Socia, Stone, R., Palacios, W. R., & Cluverius, J. (2021). Focus on prevention: The public is more supportive of “overdose prevention sites” than they are of “safe injection facilities.” Criminology & Public Policy, 20(4), 729–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12566.

Milestone 1:

H.R.1466 - American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act

Hillary Boyce

Regent University

September 4, 2022

Milestone 1: H.R.1466 - American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act

Introduction to Topic

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2022 made several fundamental law changes affecting government contracting companies, including H.R.1466 - American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act. The 2022 NDAA amends the U.S. Code by prohibiting the Secretary of Defense from purchasing personal protective equipment (PPE) from China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, with the approval of a waiver. The law sets the terms PPE to include everything from gloves to face masks, which could present sourcing problems as many of these items are manufactured primarily in China. These changes also prohibit using federal contracting funds to procure goods produced with labor from China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in response to the human rights issues reported in that area. These changes limit spending from these nations and also increase the ability of Unites States-based contract companies to have more opportunities in this market.

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

a. In March 2021, Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC-10) and Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ-09) introduced H.R. 1466, the American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act.

b. The rules of procedure in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2022 included H.R.1466 - American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced? Yes.

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 believe 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.

a. This policy is supposed to provide economic funding and business to small American companies and supply shortages.

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

a. The first interested party is the hospitals and frontline healthcare workers to assist the issue of access to PPE.

b. The second interest group is the U.S.-based government contracting companies.

Why is it important to learn about this topic?

This bipartisan legislation will help end the United States leaning on foreign-made PPE and ensure that hospitals and frontline healthcare workers will always have access to a plentiful supply of high-quality American-made PPE. This also stimulation from federal spending to American-based companies and our economy. The American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act helps economic growth to be reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States for the purchase of PPE with the federal spending of the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Project Outline

I. Introduce H.R. 1466, the American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act.

II. Consider the context surrounding this issue

a. What is the status quo?

b. Has public opinion on this issue evolved

III. Who are the interested parties?

a. Hospitals/Medical worker

b. Elected Officials – consequences for election prospects

c. U.S. Government contract companies – competition

d. Foreign entities – the impact

IV. Final evaluation and recommendations

References

Barnett, Kevin (2022). Westlaw Today 2022 PRINDBRF 0008. 2022 NDAA makes significant changes to federal procurement policy. Retrieved 4 September, 2022 from https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I17643b5b6f3411ec9f24ec7b211d8087/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0&firstPage=true

H.R.1466 - American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act. Retrieved September 04, 2022. From https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1466/text?r=5&s=1

McHenry, Patrick (2021). McHenry Introduces Bipartisan American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act. Retrieved 4 September, 2022 from https://mchenry.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=402799#:~:text=1466%2C%20the%20American%20PPE%20Supply,high%2Dquality%20American%20made%20PPE.

Milestone 1: Sherman Antitrust Act

Thomas Larkin

College of Arts & Sciences, Regent University

ECON 290: Political Economics

Dr. Bajah

Sunday, September 4, 2022

Introduction to the Topic

The Sherman Antitrust Act is one of the most important financial laws drafted in the U.S., along with starting as one of the more impotent. To set the scene, it was in the late 1800s, and industrialization was in full force in America. Businessmen like J.P. Morgan or J. D. Rockefeller were capturing many industries and were gaining a lot of sway over the nation. Via a mixture of rent seeking, hyper efficiency, and economic tactics, (both illegal and otherwise), companies such as these were slowly driving most of their competition out of business. In a near universal decision, congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, making it illegal to (among other things) attempt to form a monopoly (National Archives, 2022). When first introduced, while the push to pass it was near universal, (only one senator voted against the bill), it was rarely used. This might have been due to when the U.S. government attempted to prosecute American Sugar, (which controlled 98% of the industry), and lost eight to one in the Supreme Court (Britannica, n.d.). This was changed during the presidency of Theodor Roosevelt, who used the piece of legislation against J.P. Morgan’s merger of three major railroad companies, and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust (Justia, n.d.a., n.d.b.). The legislation continued to be strengthened and used more frequently, until World War I, at which point its common use was stopped until after World War II. While Antitrust Laws, (with the Sherman Antitrust Act as the backbone), gained even more traction after World War II, the fervor soon dissipated. This is best summarized by the change in Supreme Court position, where they viewed Antitrust legislation as a protection for the consumer (Pate, 2004). Under this logic, a monopoly only broke the law if consumers were harmed by the monopoly. This largely caused antitrust law to fall into obscurity, though recent trials involving large technology companies like Facebook or Google may prove to revive the field.

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

a. The Sherman Antitrust Act was meant to prevent uncompetitive contracts. For example, Standard Oil had unfair deals with railroad companies which gave them a special discount (National Archives, 2022).

b. The Sherman Antitrust Act was meant to prevent uncompetitive monopolies or trusts from emerging. In other words, just competing was fine, but making shady deals or unfair business practices were illegal (National Archives, 2022).

2. Are those rules effectively enforced? Not at the beginning. Through other acts and amendments, it became much more focused and effective.

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? Yes, I believe that is the case.

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.

a. The Sherman Antitrust Act was meant to be a tool to break up the many monopolies and trusts at the time. It made it illegal to form trusts and forced many of the trusts at the time to break up into their subsidiaries.

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

a. The first interested party are the trusts and monopolies in question. It is in their best interest to stop the bill, as it would force them to break up into smaller parts. This would, in turn, lessen their comparative advantage, as they could not as effectively utilize the economy of scale. Beyond that, the companies would eventually have to start competing with the other companies that comprised the trust. While this might have been delayed by ‘old boy’ networks, the forces of the free market would eventually force their hand.

b. Another interested party would be the worker unions. If the bill was passed and utilized effectively, it would help break up many monopolies into smaller pieces, making it easier to negotiate with the local companies. On the other hand, they would have to worry about being broken up themselves, as a union, (in part), violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

c. A third interested party would be the small companies that compete with these monopolies. For example, Standard Oil used many tactics to drive smaller oil producers out of business. Most of these tactics would be made illegal with the Sherman Antitrust Act. This would allow them to more easily compete.

Why is it important to learn about this Topic?

While antitrust legislation is a relatively obscure field, it has a large bearing on economics and government. It is at the core of the argument between public choice and the thought process that dominated the 1950s and 1960s. Should government involve itself in the economy, acting as a correction mechanism, or should it simply enforce contracts and property rights, leaving the market to do what it will within such confines. Interpretations of the Sherman Antitrust Act have varied between these two views for as long as it has existed. However, with the rise of technology companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, or Facebook, this issue may come back to the public light. There are other industries with similar problems, like pharmaceuticals or movies. Putting a spotlight on antitrust laws, using public choice economics as a lens, and with the Sherman Antitrust Act as the backbone for all that followed will be useful for what might come in the near future.

References

Britannica. (n.d.). United States v. E.C. Knight Company. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-v-E-C-Knight-Company.

Justia. (n.d.). Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904). Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/193/197/.

Justia. (n.d.). Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911). Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/221/1/.

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.

Milestone 1: Introduction to HR 5376, The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Macgregor Langston

Economics 290: Political Economy

Regent University

September 4, 2022

Introduction

In mid-August, HR 5376: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was signed into law by President Biden (HR 5376, 2022). The primary purpose of this bill was said to be combating the growing inflation crisis (Durante et al., 2022). However, the contents of this bill diverge greatly from its title. The bill is a slimmed down version of the Build Back Better Bill, a centerpiece of President Biden’s agenda, which will not alleviate inflation (Smith, 2022). The contents of the bill reflect the president’s current economic agenda. First, the bill establishes a 15% minimum tax rate for corporations (Smith, 2022). Second, it reduces the cost of drugs for beneficiaries of Medicare (Smith, 2022). Third, it greatly increases funding for IRS tax enforcement, allocating $80 billion for the agency over the next 10 years (Smith, 2022). Fourth, government subsidies from the Affordable Care Act were extended to 2025 (Smith, 2022). Fifth and finally, the bill provides significant legislation for climate change, including “investments in clean energy production and tax credits aimed at reducing carbon emissions” (Smith, 2022). None of these changes address inflation, and may instead “worsen inflation by constraining the productive capacity of the economy (Durante et al., 2022).”

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding this policy?

a. As laid out above, this bill will raise the minimum tax rate for corporations, reduce drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries, majorly bolster the IRS, extend the subsidies of the ACA, and increase climate change incentives. This is a broad set of rules for defining the federal government’s economic policy moving forward.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

a. With the major support the bill provides for the Internal Revenue Service, and its direct support from the Biden administration, all of these rules will likely be effectively enforced.

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?

a. For the average citizen, the misleading name of this bill will surely disappoint. Within the government, there is clearly a romance to this bill, as it represents a thrust for a specific agenda rather than a carefully designed economic policy for the purpose of improving the lives of American citizens.

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.

a. While the rhetoric of this act purports it will combat inflation, the true action of the bill is to increase government revenue and power, and also fulfill a climate change agenda. This bill primarily benefits the federal government, providing it with a net revenue increase of $324 billion from 2022 to 2031 (Durante et al., 2022).

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

a. Special interests involved in this bill include those in the federal government who will benefit from the increase in revenue, especially the Internal Revenue Service. However, climate change activists and politicians who want to appear concerned about climate change also have a special interest in this bill. The Democratic Party as a whole represents a special interest as this legislation is crucial to its current agenda. All of these interest groups reap benefits from this legislation. However, the Americans suffering from inflation are being hurt instead of helped. Those under the Affordable Care Act or Medicare will see some benefits, but the costs will likely offset the benefits.

Why is it important to learn about this topic?

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is a perfect example of economic decisions made in a non-market setting. The Bill claims to address a legitimate economic issue, yet fulfills a greatly diverging political agenda instead. While the bill does not solve inflation, likely worsening the crisis instead, it does provide significant revenue and power to the federal government, showing that government figures are still flawed people likely to be driven by selfish desires. Moreover, it shows the tendency of governments to put political agendas over what is best for the economy, as represented by the bill’s provisions for climate change. This bill will affect the direction of the United States moving forward and further damage a struggling economy, indicating it will play a key role in the forthcoming history of this nation and its place in the world politically and economically.

References

Durante, A., Kallen, C., Li, H., McBride, W., & Watson, G. (2022, September 1). Inflation

reduction act: Details & analysis. Tax Foundation. Retrieved September 3, 2022 from https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act/

H.R.5376 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. (2022, August 16).Retrieved September 2, 2022 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376

Smith, K. A. (2022, August 23). The inflation reduction act is now law-here's what it means for you. Forbes. Retrieved September 2, 2022 from https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/inflation-reduction-act/

Milestone 1: Abortion ban, Roe V. Wade case

Introduction to topic

What is there to say about abortion and how it is murder to an unborn child? Abortion has been the subject of many conversations for years, whether it's right or wrong. In 1973 the United States Supreme Court made a law to legalize abortion with Roe V. Wade. The case called for giving women a United States Constitutional right by saying they can do what they want with their bodies and to end a pregnancy on their terms. The United States decided to overturn that law they had made previously in 1973 to allow each state to give women the right to have an abortion. Many will argue in each state that if it is legal, it's safe abortion. There is no safe abortion; it is still murder, no matter how you view it. (Explainer: US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade 2022).

Regarding abortion, half of the states in the United States are reversing abortion rights, which leaves women no longer have a constitutional right to decide to end their pregnancy. Many Democratic legislators are standing up for abortion, stating how they think it is wrong to take away a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy by saying it is unconstitutional. One of the people making a claim is former President Bill Clinton. Abortion is illegal in many states, and when it comes to ethics, it is a murder of the fetus regardless of the state of the pregnancy. A few states, such as Michigan, are working to overturn the 2022 decision to make abortion legal. (Totenberg & McCammon, Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending the right to abortion upheld for decades 2022).

Concept Question

1. What are the relevant rules regarding the Policy?

a. Abortion is not illegal in all states. The decision overturned does not make it a requirement anymore.

b. The decision to make it legal is left up to the states

2. Are those rules effectively enforced? Yes, but vary by state

3. Is there a romance–reality disconnect in the Policy? In other words, do people expect a much more "public-spirited" outcome than is realistic? I think people hope that abortion will become legal again in all fifty states, but the result will remain the same.

4. What is the collective action policy supposed to accomplish? Or is there one? Is the Policy designed to favor some over others?

a. Reduce the number of abortions

b. Save human life

c. The Policy's purpose is to protect the babies in the womb from being killed.

5. Is there a particular interest involved? Who? Are they successful? The Policy protects the unborn child from being killed by taking away a woman's right to terminate the pregnancy.

6. Why is it important to learn about the topic? The topic is essential to know why Roe V. Wade got overturned and what it means for the future.

References

Explainer: US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade. (2022, June 29). Retrieved September 3, 2022, from https://righttolife.org.uk/news/explainer-us-supreme-court-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade?gclid=Cj0KCQjw08aYBhDlARIsAA_gb0c5bla_szwlEy7dXXRw8Hxh2Q7r1a5bsIcGAU66q6YtLK0wnQF8oacaAicgEALw_wcB

Totenberg, N., & McCammon, S. (2022, June 24). Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending the right to abortion upheld for decades. Retrieved September 3, 2022, from https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn#:~:text=In%20a%20historic%20and%20far,half%20century%2C%20no%20longer%20exists.

Brenna May

Dr. Bajah

ECON 290

September 4, 2021

Milestone 1

The recent passing of Senate bill 8 in Texas, also called the ‘Texas abortion ban’. This bill went into effect in Texas on September 1st after the Supreme Court failed to take any action on repeals submitted by providers and abortion rights advocacy groups. The bill bans abortions whenever a “heartbeat” is detected, which can be as early as six weeks, before most people even know they are pregnant. According to the Texas Tribune, the state would not technically be allowed to enforce this ban, as it would be a violation of the Row Vs Wade amendment. However, lawmakers found a loophole; “Also, in a maneuver to get around the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, the bill is structured to allow private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone who helps patients obtain abortions after the six-week mark.” (Reynolds, 2021). According to some medical experts, what the lawmakers have defined as a “heartbeat” is not scientifically accurate. Reynolds states, “The central thrust of the broader law received particular criticism. It bans abortions after an ultrasound can detect what lawmakers defined as a fetal heartbeat. This can occur as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, when many people don’t yet know they’re pregnant. However, medical and legal experts say the term “heartbeat” is inaccurate, since embryos at that point don’t possess a heart.” (Reynolds, 2021). Abortion has been a highly debated issue for nearly half a century in this country and with pro-choice and anti-choice groups engaged in fierce advocacy for their causes, it remains a very important issue to the majority of America.

1. What are the relevant rules guiding this policy?

a. The bill bans abortions whenever a fetal “heartbeat” can be detected

b. Due to constitutional rights, the state of Texas is not legally able to enforce this bill but it allows citizens to enforce it by suing providers, patients, and any person who may have helped a patient receive an abortion on the basis of the heartbeat ban. Though the state itself cannot take legal action.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced

a. Because of the nature of the bills, it can only be enforced through civil suits against providers and patients. The state is unable to take action. So far, anti-choice groups in Texas have created websites where citizens can send anonymous tips of any abortions being had or provided. The website is also allowing people to launch plaintiff cases against providers and patients. So far, the bill seems to be working as its writers intended. However, it is yet to be seen how these civil cases will stand in court, or if the bill will even survive the coming months.

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?

a. I would say yes, on both sides. The anti-choice groups believe this is a complete victory for them and that they have finally found a loophole around the Row Vs. Wade amendment. While pro-choice groups believe reproductive rights are in jeopardy all across American, based on the Supreme Court’s decision. I think both are unrealistic and neither side is going to be completely happy in the end.

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

a. The intended collective action was to get citizens to enforce this bill by launching civil suits against providers and patients. A stated previously there have already been a few websites set up by groups like the Texas Right to Life group where people can send in tips against anyone who may have provided or received an abortion. These websites exist but so far, since no civil suits have been launched and no providers or women have been arrested, the effectiveness of the bill is yet to be seen.

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

a. Anti-choice advocacy groups who have put enormous amounts of funding and marketing towards their cause

b. Anti-choice politicians in Texas as well as other states will find success politically from this bill. Texas politicians will be able to claim success and politicians in other states can campaign on promises of similar legislative attempts.

Works Cited

Reynolds, K. (2021, September 3). 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/

Sean Preston

Dr. Jeff Bajah

ECON 290

5 September 2021

Milestone #1: Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

On Tuesday, August 10th, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The bill, which comes with a $1.2 trillion dollar price tag, aims to enhance the nation’s infrastructure by focusing spending in areas ranging from public transportation to broadband and renewable energy (117th Congress, 2021-22) According to the White House (2021) fact sheet, the bill will “pay for itself” by the economic activity it is expected to generate Historically, infrastructure has been politically popular, and this bill is no different. A Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll found that nearly 7 in 10 Americans support the infrastructure package (Greenwood, 2021).

Concept Questions:

I. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

a. At this point in time, the bill is awaiting approval in the House of Representatives, after which the Senate will vote again on the final draft before sending it to the president’s desk.

b. The bill sets guidelines for how funds are to be appropriated.

II. Are those rules effectively enforced?

a. It is still unclear whether the bill’s guidelines for the appropriation of funds will reach their targets and prove effective.

III. 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?

a. Yes

- Infrastructure spending bills, while politically popular, are prone to abuse and waste. An additional complication might be that states and municipalities not the federal government, are much more capable and efficacious spenders of taxpayer dollars.

- People might be surprised to learn, not having read the 2,700 page bill, what “infrastructure” in this context really means. The bill goes substantially beyond mere road and bridge maintenance and appropriates spending for—among other things—climate change, electric charging stations, and high-speed rail (White House, 2021).

- The bill is being sold as an economically self-financing spending venture, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that bill would around $350 billion dollars to the debt (Lobosco & Luhby, 2021).

IV. 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.

a. The White House (2021) claims that, when passed, the act will “grow the economy, enhance our competitiveness, create good jobs, and make our economy more sustainable, resilient, and just.”

b. While I have not yet done a deep-dive on the legislation, it appears that many of the bill’s stated policy goals involve…

- government picking winners and losers in the market.

- redistribution rather than wealth creation.

- partisan wish-lists NOT “necessary infrastructure.”

c. While rhetoric from the White House and others suggest that the bill will be an enormous boon for the public, the bulk of the bill’s contents are almost certainly an enormous boon for special interests.

V. Are there a special interests involved? Who? Are they successful?

a. As with any bill, but especially a bill of this size, there are almost certainly special interests involved trying to secure rents.

- Since most U.S. infrastructure is privately owned, it seems likely that much of the bill will invariably fall to special interests (Edwards, 2017).

- For instance, the bill includes various provision for union input, commits $22 billion dollars to Amtrak, and humorously, promises to build up EV infrastructure in “rural, disadvantaged, and hard-to-reach communities” (White House, 2021).

References

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

Greenwood, M. (2021, August 2). Poll shows broad support for bipartisan infrastructure bill. TheHill. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/565958-poll-shows-broad-support-for-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill?rl=1.

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.html.

Text - H.R.3684 - 117th Congress (2021–2022): Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. (2021). Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text.

White House. (2021, August 1). FACT SHEET: Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/28/fact-sheet-historic-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/.

Kiersten McDonald

Prof. Bajah

ECON 290 Political Economy

5 September 2021

Explanation of Policy Topic: The Enslaved Ancestors College Access Scholarship and Memorial Program

The Enslaved Ancestors College Access Scholarship and Memorial Program, signed by Gov. Ralph Northam May 5th, 2021, requires the University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Military Institute, The College of William & Mary, and Longwood University, five Virginian universities who were built and profited off of enslaved labor, to provide either college scholarships or economic development programs to candidates who are descendants of enslaved people who built these universities (Grablick, para. 2). This policy will go into effect during the 2022-2023 academic year.

Concept Questions:

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

A. Universities are required annually to identify and memorialize enslaved peoples who worked at each university and bans the mentioned universities from funding this scholarship/program via state funds or school tuition (House Bill no. 1980, section B).

B. Scholarship plans must be finalized by July 1st, 2022.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced? Yes

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’m not sure yet.

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

a. This policy seeks to hold the Virginia Commonwealth’s universities “economically accountable for profiting off of slavery” (Grablick, para. 1)

b. The program also seeks to address the history and the “long legacy of slavery in the Commonwealth” (House no. 1980, section A).

5. Is there a special interests involved? Who? Are they successful? I’m not sure yet.

Outline:

a. Introduction of bill

b. Historical context of slavery in the education system

1. Transition into modern context

c. Potential Interest groups

d. “romanticized” aspects of the bill (potential)

e. Final evaluation/analysis/conclusion

Reason for choosing this topic:

An academic interest I have is the effect that ethnic relations have on policy-making. Within the past year, during a time in which race issues were pushed into the national and global forefront, I was curious to see how my home state of Virginia addressed this issue state-wide.

Works Cited

Grablick, Colleen. “VA Law Will Require Universities to CREATE Scholarships for Descendants of Slaves.” NPR, NPR, 6 May 2021, www.npr.org/local/305/2021/05/06/993878297/v-a-law-will-require-universities-to-create-scholarships-for-descendants-of-slaves.

“House Bill No. 1980.” Legislative Information System, lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?211%2Bful%2BHB1980H1.

Lydia Strickland

Professor Bajah

Econ 290

9/5/2021

Milestone 1: WV Needle Exchange Program

I will be writing my paper on the WV Needle Exchange Program and the policies surrounding it. This is a big topic in the state, especially since the governor just signed a bill that imposed limitations on the program that some view as a potential issue and question their constitutionality.

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy? Governor Justice signed a Bill in April that requires users of the Needle Exchange program to provide a WV ID, have government sign off on the programs, and require users to bring back old needles that have been used.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced? Different agencies questioned the constitutionality of the new restrictions, and a judge required them to be halted while he considered the constitutionality, ultimately deciding that it is enforceable.

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? People believe this program will reduce the amount of needles in public areas, while reducing the amount of diseases passed through drug users by injection using dirty needles.

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? The plan is to reduce the spread of diseases such as HIV and Hep-C among drug users that use injection.

5. Is there a special interest involved? Are they successful? The special interest is the drug-users that use by injection.

Outline

I. Introduction

II. Explanation of Drug Problem in WV

a) Statistics on the amount of substance abuse per capita

b) Statistics on overdose deaths in the state

III. Explanation of WV Needle Exchange Program

a) How it will help the drug problem in WV

IV. How the program is funded

V. Issues surrounding the program

a) New limitations requiring WV ID to receive needles, protests from different people

VI. Conclusion

Sources:

· https://mountainstatespotlight.org/2021/07/08/wv-temporarily-barred-from-enforcing-new-syringe-exchange-restrictions/

· https://wvmetronews.com/2021/04/15/justice-signs-syringe-exchange-bill-despite-health-leaders-push-for-a-veto/

Danielle Ward

Professor Bajah

ECON 290

9/5/21

Milestone 1: Wildfire Prevention and Forest Resiliency Act of 2021 (AB-297)

Introduction to Policy Topic

An interesting, as well as relevant, subject of discussion is wildfire policy and forest management. Particularly in California where there have been 6,913 fire incidents so far this fire season, which according to Cal Fire, have already burned a total of 1.8 million acres of land and destroyed nearly 3,000 structures. Widespread wildfires such as the Dixie Fire and the Caldor Fire have been burning across Northern California for several weeks now and have yet to be fully contained, forcing a growing number of counties to evacuate. Poor weather conditions are consistently cited as a major contributing factor as to why these fires are so difficult to contain in California, a state that boasts a “Mediterranean climate highly conducive to fire, with its long dry summers and periods of thunderstorms, low relative humidity, and strong winds” (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018).

Relevant Rules/Issues Guiding Policy Direction

The growing frequency and intensity of fire seasons in California truly serves as a grim reminder that the Golden State is “far behind in adopting policies widely known to protect lives and property” (Plumer 2020). California’s increasingly dry climate, alongside years of neglectful practices (such as fire suppression) that disrupt the balance between natural fire regimes and ecosystems, have ultimately left “forests vulnerable to disease, insects, catastrophic fire and drought,” as well as endangered the businesses, homes, and lives of millions of Californians. As wildfires appear to increase in scope at a rapid rate, wildfire and forest management legislation is unsurprisingly the center of focus for several California lawmakers, with dozens of bills having already been introduced just two months into 2021. In late January, Assemblyman James Gallagher (3rd Assembly District) introduced AB 297, also known as the Wildfire Prevention and Forest Resiliency Act of 2021. The bill was authored by Gallagher, along with a large coalition of State Assembly and Senate members representing several communities across California, who believe that “the time for incrementalism is over” and that “we need a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to preventing wildfires” (ECT 2021).

AB-297 was written with the intent of providing a solution to problems that previous legislation has failed to address effectively. The coalition contends that minimal progress has been made in improving forest management, nor has the proper attention been given to fuel treatment funding and frequency. The Wildfire Prevention and Forest Resiliency Act proposes that $500 million be annually allocated from the existing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to “provide sustained resources for forest health, forest management and fire prevention programs” (Herbaugh 2021). Projects concerning forest fuel and forest health will be exempt from CEQA, streamlining the process of approval and increasing the likelihood of California accomplishing its goal of treating 500,000 acres per year. Due to current environmental regulations under CEQA, it can take 3-5 years for a project to gain approval. AB 297 would also expand on an existing exemption to the Timber Harvest Plan requirements for homeowners who wish to clear defensible space beyond the required 100 feet.

Can Policy Rules be Effectively Enforced

The success of any legislation concerning wildfire and forest management will be heavily contingent upon providing the proper incentive for active collaboration with stakeholders. There are millions of dead and/or dying trees in California; and a shortage of processing facilities certainly impedes fire-prevention and clean-up efforts. In the aftermath of the Camp Wildfire of 2018, for example: contractors for utility PG&E were quick to begin the process of cutting down thousands of dead/dying trees in Paradise, but it is arguably counterproductive when there are several piles of highly flammable logs stacked all over town. Incentivizing industries that produce and/or make use of biomass, biofuels, and innovative wood products, is essential in order to ensure that “these materials are safely removed and utilized” (ECT 2020). In theory, the allocation of funds from GGRF to forest management, forest health, and fire prevention programs may help mitigate California’s wildfire problem, as well as help California meet its goals for CO2 emission reduction--but as far as restoration efforts go, it has been determined that 20 million acres of forest land would benefit from fuel treatments, which would be 25% of California. Reaching a mere 500,000 acres annually has been a struggle due to restrictive environmental regulations.

“Romance”/Disconnect from Reality in Policy and Expectation for Collective Action

A lack of financial incentive/assistance for small landowners is a common problem in wildfire policy proposals. A sizable portion of the land owned by private and family landowners is at higher risk to wildfire than federally owned lands, but they cannot take action in reducing these risks because the necessary staff and equipment for prescribed burns/mechanical thinning projects is too expensive (legal liability is also a concern for landowners). There are a variety of barriers that prevent wildfire policy objectives from becoming a reality. A vast majority of wildfires occur in Wildland Urban Interface communities, and wildfire retrofitting is also quite expensive, so providing funding and incentivizing homeowners to retrofit their homes has the potential to significantly reduce the rate of home loss/property destruction during wildfires. It is important that Californians come to understand the crucial role small landowners play in addressing the wildfire crisis, and that working with family forest landowners is an effective way to reduce risk as well as better endure healthy, more resilient forests. This cannot be accomplished without further social engagement with WUI communities, nor if landowners lack the means to conduct prescribed burns and other fuel treatment methods; as such, an effort must be made to alleviate financial, regulative, and risk-related barriers.

Special Interests Involved

Suffice it to say, there are several special interests involved in AB-297, such as Cal Fire and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), two stakeholders which play a pivotal role in California’s wildfire crisis, as well as in the enforcement of wildfire policy and forest management in general (other special interests to consider are WUI communities and private/family forest landowners). An estimated twenty million acres of forest land, about 20% of California, needs to be burned to restabilize. It has also been speculated that California state agencies, will not facilitate this number of prescribed burns simply because there is no financial incentive. This is primarily because fire suppression is “big business,” and has given rise to a new ‘fire-dependent’ class of government agencies and private corporations, which have accumulated enormous power and profits from firefighting. In relation to wildfire management, prescribed burns are heavily regulated by CARB. While prescribed burn permits are issued by local air quality districts, CARB reserves the authority to rescind the permit at any time if the agency decides it is a “no burn” day. Recent research conducted on the changing risk and societal burden of wildfire in the United States indicates that “wildfire smoke will be one of the most widely felt health impacts of climate change throughout the country, but U.S. clean air regulations are not equipped to deal with it” (Brandeis 2021). It has been contended that this is because Air quality regulations have prevented California from utilizing the full potential of fuel management strategies. For instance, the Clean Air Act of 1990 grants CARB the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, prescribed burns are subject to regulation because they are under human-control, whereas “wildfire is not currently regulated as an air quality issue at the state level, and is not covered by the Clean Air Act,” because wildfire smoke is considered an “exceptional emissions source, an act of God not subject to human control and thus not considered in assessment of air quality standard attainment” (Brandeis 2021).

References

Bill Text - AB-297 Wildfire Prevention and Forest Resiliency Act. (2021). Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB297

Brandeis, A. (2021). Researchers say wildfire smoke is reversing years of air pollution progress. Retrieved from https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/researchers-say-wildfire-smoke-is-reversing-years-of-air-pollution-progress

ECT. (2021). Gallagher Leads Coalition with Comprehensive Approach to Curb Catastrophic Wildfires. Retrieved from https://eastcountytoday.net/gallagher-leads-coalition-with-comprehensive-approach-to-curb-catastrophic-wildfires/

Herbaugh, A. (2021). Gallagher introduces legislation aimed at combatting California's wildfire crisis. Retrieved from https://krcrtv.com/news/local/gallagher-introduces-bill-to-combat-californias-wildfire-crisis

Plumer, B., Schwartz, B. (2020). These Changes Are Needed Amid Worsening Wildfires, Experts Say. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/climate/wildfires-climate-policy.html

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.

McKenzie Knaub

Dr. Bajah

GOVT 290

5 September 2021

Milestone One

An interesting policy to look at is the San Francisco Sanctuary City Ordinance. This policy was created to provide a sense of security for undocumented immigrants from ICE by barring city employees to assist ICE with city resources unless required by law (Editors of City and County of San Francisco). These types of policies have been implemented in various cities, not just in San Francisco. This policy sought to protect the 240,000 undocumented immigrants living in San Francisco in 2016 (Passel and Cohn).

Concept Questions:

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

City employees cannot with city resources: cooperate with ICE related to violations of civil provisions of federal immigration law, Ask about the status on applications for city benefits or services except by required by statutes, regulations, or court decisions, limit benefits based on immigration status, provide information about the release status of personal information except during certain circumstances, and cannot detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration detainer.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

I don’t know yet; from what I have gathered so far, the rules are enforced, I have not found anything on the effectiveness of the enforcement yet.

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 that many people expect more from the public. By and large, I feel like the majority of the citizens support the policy, and a lot of those who support it are not in the group directly affected by it. (This is based on what I have found so far, more research will be done into it)

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.

The policy is supposed to accomplish a feeling of security for the small group of illegal immigrants living in San Francisco. (The group is considered small in comparison to the overall population in San Francisco) In 2016 there was an estimated 240,000 undocumented immigrants in San Francisco compared to the 850,282-population size in 2016. Therefore, they make up 28% of the population. (This is assuming that sanctuary cities count undocumented immigrants in their population, I am still researching whether or not that is the case). This policy is designed to favor undocumented immigrants by allowing them a “sanctuary” from ICE; it does not directly affect other groups of the population (They might be affected through jobs or housing by the rules do not directly affect them as a person).

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

The special interest is to give undocumented immigrants a feeling of safety and a place where they cannot, under most circumstances, be obtained by ICE. They are typically successful in making immigrants feel safe from ICE.

Project Outline:

I. Introduction

a. Basic information about the topic

b. Thesis

c. Preview the main points for the paper

II. Introduce the policy in length

a. Basic rules of the policy

b. Enforcement of the policy

c. Effectiveness of the policy

III. Analysis of policy from a citizen standpoint

a. What are the pros?

b. What are the cons?

c. How are everyday citizens effected?

d. Are there any adverse side effects of this policy?

IV. Analysis of policy from a collective-action standpoint

a. Goals of the policy

b. Targets of the policy

c. Should it be a problem worth solving from a collective-action standpoint?

V. Analyze the policy from a government/political standpoint

a. Is this policy legal?

b. Touch on objections to this policy

c. Is the policy well received by the public?

VI. Conclusion

a. Restate thesis

b. Sum up key points

c. Retouch on main arguments

References

Editors of City and County of San Francisco. Office of Civic Engagement & Immigrant Affairs. n.d. 4 September 2021.

Passel, Jeffrey S. and D'vera Cohn. Pew Resrach Center. 12 June 2019. 4 September 2021.

Cullen Jones

Professor Bajah

ECON 290

September 4, 2021

Milestone 1

Introduction

H.R.5, otherwise known as the Equality Act, has stirred up a considerable amount of controversy due to its passing by the House of Representatives twice. The first time the bill passed was in 2019, but after its introduction to the Senate, it puttered out. The bill was passed in the House again in February 2021, but still has yet to pass in the Senate. This bill is controversial because if it were to become law, all public and private institutions and gatherings would be under protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity. This includes public restrooms and facilities that a specific person with a sexual preference chooses to enter. H.R.5 virtually nullifies H.R.1308, which is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. H.R.1308 allows for the nullification of a law for an individual if it restricts that individual’s religious freedom or violates their religious beliefs. If H.R.5 is to become a law, then churches, schools, and other private businesses or organizations across the nation will be in danger of penalizing lawsuits and possibly being shut down if they fail to comply.

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 becomes amended to include protection from discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity. The Act forces public and governmental facilities and programs to accept members who would otherwise be turned away due to their sexual or gender identity. This includes allowing the use of the preferred restroom or facility of the determined gender identity. The definition of public has also been amended to include virtually any gathering of people.

2. Are those roles effectively enforced?

H.R.5 is not currently law, but should it become law, then individuals with peculiar sexual orientation or gender identity would be able to effectively gain access to places they otherwise would not. Any attempt to deny them such passage would ultimately lead to a lawsuit that could financially harm businesses and shut down religious gatherings.

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?

Apparently so, given the overwhelming population of Evangelicals and Catholics in the nation. This form of rhetoric only seeks to gain approval from a minority, although a growing minority, of individuals who practice this kind of sexual behavior. But perhaps a great deal of resistance is expected due to the amount of division that this bill has caused in Congress. However, this is less about how well the public views the bill and more about how much control over the opposing side its supporters can gain.

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.

This policy wants to ensure that no one is denied goods and services, regardless of sexuality. However, this poses a threat to religious freedom in the sense that many Christians and people of other faiths view homosexuality as wrong and do not wish to act on something that is against their will. This bill certainly favors very small minorities who have made sex their identifying characteristic. To those who deny such a lifestyle, their livelihoods and businesses could be put on the line.

5. Is there a special interest involved? Who? Are they successful?

Other than those it benefits – individuals with nonstandard sexual orientation or gender identity – the special interests are unknown to me at this time.

Sources:

Equality Act, H.R.5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess.

Equality Act, H.R.5, 117th Cong., 1st Sess.

Equality Act, S.788, 116th Cong., 1st Sess.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, H.R.1308, 103rd Cong.

Seering, L. (n.d.). Religious freedom restoration act (rfra) - freedom from religion foundation. Freedom From Religion. https://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/22708-religious-freedom-restoration-act-rfra#:~:text=The%20Religious%20Freedom%20Restoration%20Act%20is%20a%20law,that%20the%20laws%20conflict%20with%20their%20religious%20beliefs.

Concept Questions

My topic of choice for the policy analysis project is the most recent abortion law enacted in Texas. This law enables private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion at any time after six weeks of pregnancy. This includes the abortion agencies, those who help transport the women to and from their clinics, and even those who assist financially. There does not have to be any proven connection from the private citizens and those that they sue. I chose this law because it is an important topic to myself. My own beliefs are that women should be allowed to choose what to do with their bodies, especially in certain circumstances that would deem it necessary. I also chose this because it is a recent topic of discussion and there should be more details coming out throughout the course of the direction for the policy and why the Supreme court did not step in and deny it.

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

The rules that guide the law are that private citizens are now allowed to sue anyone or any entity that assists women getting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. There are no exceptions to the rule such as a rape case or anything else.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

That rule is currently being enforced and has resulted in many abortion clinics already shutting down and stopping work. It essentially makes abortion illegal after six weeks for women because they now have to live in fear that themselves or anyone assisting them would be getting sued for their actions.

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?

Yes, ultimately people believe that their protests and other oppositions to the law will result in the outcome of the law being revoked. However, it is not likely that this will come to fruition based upon the Supreme court decision.

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

I am not sure at this point what it is trying to accomplish. There is an anti-abortion group that has established a “’whistleblower’ website where people can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law” (McCammon, 2021). This would suggest that no one is really benefitting from this law.

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

I am not sure who the special interest would pertain to at this time, or if they would be successful or not in their goals.

Outline

I. Introduction to the topic

A. What the law is and when it was enacted.

II. Who the parties are that are affected

A. Women

B. Those that assist in abortions

C. Private citizens that sue

III. Implications of the law

IV. Conclusion

References

Supreme Court Fails To Get Involved, So Texas Abortion Law Goes Into Effect. (2021). Morning Edition (NPR).

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.

Jacob Eckard

Professor Bajah

Economic 290

Milestone 1

Virginia Cell Phone Law 2021

1. What are the relevant rules guiding this policy?

a. A rule guiding this policy is that drivers are not allowed to hold a cell phone while operating a vehicle (Shannon & Associates, P.C. 2021).

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

a. I do not believe that these rules are effectively enforced.

b. Most drivers are going to be on their phone for work and personal purposes. The driver needs to have integrity and do the right thing even when there are no cops around.

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?

a. I believe there is a split outcome. Some people agree with the law because it will prevent accidents and deaths, and some disagree with the law because some individuals do not believe they will be distracted with a phone in their hand.

4. What is the collective action the policy is supposed to accomplish? Or is there one? Be sure to distinguish between actual results and rhetoric.

a. The policy is supposed to protect drivers from causing harm to themselves and others around them.

b. 80 percent of all crashes happen because the driver is not paying attention according to the research from Virginia Tech University (Kassabian 2021).

5. Is there a special interest involved? Who? Are they successful?

a. Two special interest groups that have influence on this law are It Can Wait and StopDistractions.org (B.B.,&Bender).

b. I believe these groups are successful because they promote good ads of not holding a cell phone which led to Virginia passing this law.

A policy to consider in Virginia is the “New-Hands Free Law in 2021.” The Virginia General Assembly passed House Bill 874, which is a new law in Virginia in 2021 which makes it illegal to hold a cell phone while driving a vehicle. It is important to learn about this law because in our society today, there are so many drivers in Virginia that are constantly on their phones and are not paying attention to the road. It is vital that drivers do not have their cell phones in their hands while driving because they can become easily distracted and can cause harm to themselves or others around them. It is important to remember that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that there will be consequences if drivers do not obey this law.

Outline

I. Introduction

a. Virginia Cell Phone Law 2021.

b. Rules and consequences of the law

II. Policy Impacts

a. Pro law groups

b. Anti-law groups

III. Special Interest

a. It Can Wait organization

b. StopDistraction.org

c. Biblical Implications

References

B. B., & Bender, B. (2015, August 18). Safer roads: 23 awesome groups working to end texting and driving. Independent Motors. https://independentmotors.net/texting-and-driving/.

Shannon &, A., P.C. (2021, March 2). Virginia's new hands-free law in 2021: What's illegal now? Divorce & Criminal Lawyers in Chesapeake, VA or Suffolk, VA. https://www.hamptonroadslawteam.com/virginias-new-hands-free-law-in-2021-whats-illegal-now/.

Kassabian, J. (2021). New 2021 Virginia cell phone laws to know about. Kassabian & Kassabian, P.L.C. (2021, March 16). https://www.kassabianlawyers.com/new-2021-virginia-cell-phone-laws-to-know-about.

Tinesha Howell

Dr. Bajah

ECON 290

5 September 2021

Milestone 1

An interesting decision to consider is the state of Virginia’s abolishment of the death penalty after completing the second most executions compared to other states since 1976. The abolishment of capital punishment in Virginia is a pivot mark because the use of the death penalty dates to 400 years ago within the European colonies, and since then 377 individuals have been executed.

A 2014 study conducted revealed that Jurors in Washington State are three times likely to suggest capital punishments for blacks than a white defendant who committed a similar crime (Burki, 2021). Virginia upholds some of the strictest procedural rules which means due to inexperienced attorneys, poor individuals are more likely to be sentence to death without proper representation. With this decision, Virginia is now the first southern state to abolish capital punishment, and the decisions serves an example for many other states to do the same.

1. What are the rules guiding this decision?

The rules guiding this decision is the constitutions resentment of cruel and unusual punishment, and individual’s rights to civil liberties.

2. Are these rules effectively enforced?

a. No

i. People of color are more likely to be executed than white people.

ii. The death penalty was essentially created to deter violent crimes, yet the death penalty has been ranked as one of the lowest ways to deter these crimes.

iii. Hundreds of people have been released in over 20 states because they were wrongfully convicted and sentenced to the death penalty.

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?

a. Yes

i. With new technologies and DNA testing, many people believe that justice is served more accurately so the chances of individuals being falsely indicted are less slim now.

ii. Life in prison is often viewed as an insufficient punishment for many heinous crimes so many individuals feel robbed of justice for their loved ones by eliminating capital punishment.

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.

a. Yes, many individuals receive favor from this decision and its benefits are distributed evenly.

i. Blacks will benefit greatly from this decision.

ii. The decision serves as an insignia of racial justice and will most likely propel other states to eliminate capital punishment

iii. Its less expensive to give individuals a life sentence therefore the state of virginia benefits as it can use death penalty funding in a more constructive manner.

5. Is there a special interest involved? Who? Are they successful?

a. Yes.

i. The decision gives Virginia’s governor Ralph Northam a form of redemption within the black community after his 2019 racial scandal.

Why is it important to learn about this topic?

It is important to learn about this topic because it marks a step towards the end of a system of white supremacy within the state of Virginia, and it represents the slow disintegration of the death penalty. Capital punishment goes back to the nation’s history of lynching, slavery, and Jim crow, all of which are awful reminders to many of its residents. In the mid -1990s a poll was conducted which showed that 80% of Americans were in favor of the death penalty. In the same poll in 2020, it was determined that only 55% of Americans now supported the death penalty. The public’s view of capital punishment has shifted immensely (Carlisle, 2021). Conversely, this decision shows the state’s residents that their opinions matter to some extent.

References

Burki, T. (2021). The death penalty continues unabated globally. The Lancet, 397(10284), 1531–1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00902-8.

Carlisle, M. (2021, March 24). Why It’s So Significant That Virginia Looks Set To Abolish the Death Penalty. Time. https://time.com/5937804/virginia-death-penalty-abolished/.

Bibliography

Congressional Research Service. (2020, February 21). Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data. United States of America. Retrieved from https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

Department of Statistics Singapore. (2020, June). Singapore Population. Retrieved from Singstat: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/modules/infographics/population

Singapore Land Authority. (2021, June 23). Total Land Area of Singapore. Retrieved from Data.gov.sg: https://data.gov.sg/dataset/total-land-area-of-singapore?view_id=e6e37f25-01ef-4c23-a7cb-5682ab5edb75&resource_id=f4bbfac9-c3ed-4f71-9b9a-238517b214ef

The high life: Why 80% of Singaporeans live in government-built flats. (2017, July 8). Retrieved from The Economist: https://www.economist.com/asia/2017/07/06/why-80-of-singaporeans-live-in-government-built-flats

United States Census Bureau. (2019). Quick Facts: District of Columbia. Retrieved from United States Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/DC

Jamie Cruz

Professor Bajah

ECON 290

September 3, 2021

Milestone 1

The second amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (Constitution Annotated Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, n.d). However, how many times have the news, social media, or newspapers broadcast “mass shooting in the United States”? Unfortunately, in the United States we have heard numerous times the same story of guns falling in the wrong hands and losing too many love ones. In 2020, there were over 600 mass shootings in the United States (Bates, 2021). Yet, Governors and congress has failed to provide a solution or a policy that allows citizens to owner a gun; yet, prevent guns from falling in hands of someone that will harm our society.

Concept Questions

1. What are the relevant rules guiding the policy?

There are some states that require background check to own a gun and others does not.

2. Are those rules effectively enforced?

no

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?

Yes, everyone thinks that gun owners use their gun for protection. This idea would exist in a perfect world, but we do not live a perfect world. The reality is that some of those gun holders/owners see the gun as an opportunity to hurt another individually and not in a self-defense way.

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

The current policy allows gun owners to owner guns yet allows for easy access for guns to fall in the wrong hands. Also, due to the past mass shooting, the rest of the public that goes on with their daily routines lives with the uncertainty when could a mass shooting happen again.

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

The FBI defines “mass shooting” as “mass murderer” as someone who kills four or more people in one location (Bates, 2021). The interest is to lower the number of deaths and victims that are left from this mass shootings.

Project Outline

I. Introduction: The right to self-defense not murder

II. What has been done?

a. Could mass shooting be consider a national security issue?

b. Should states keep controlling gun policies or should federal law decide on a one policy that applies to the nation as a whole?

c. What motivates certain individuals to create mass shootings?

III. Possible solutions

a. How restrict should requirements be in order to become a gun owner?

b. What are the chances restricted requirements could be the cure to mass shootings?

IV. Conclusion: How can we learn from past human mistakes to build a safer tomorrow?

References

Bates, J. (2021). What Counts as a Mass Shootin? Why so Much of America’s Gun Violence Gets Overlooked. Time.com, N.PAG.

Constitution Annotated Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. (n.d), Retrived September 4, 2021, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

Matejkowski, J., Fairfax-Columbo, J., Cullen, S. W., Marcus, S. C., & Solomon, P. L. (2014). Exploring the Potential of Stricter Gun Restrictions for People with Serious Mental Illness to Reduce Homicide in the United States. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 25 (3), 263-269. https://doi-org.ezproxy.regent.edu/10.1080/14789949.2014.909868

Pomeranz, J. L., Silver, D., & Lieff, S. A. (2021). State Gun-Control, Gun-Rights, and Preemptive Firearm-Related Laws Across 50 US States for 2009-2018. American Journal of Public Health, 111(7), 1273-1280. https://doi-org.ezproxy.regent.edu/10.2105/ajph.2021.306287

Week 2: Milestone 1

The world has undergone much change recently that affects the people and the land that they belong to. In the past century the environment has taking a beating from the mass industrialization. Through research, trial and error, many countries have taken steps with their own government policies set in place to better preserve our world. The U.S. policy that is being examined in this paper is the Pollution Prevention Act. The aim of this policy is to reduce the amount of pollution output by large industries that utilize recourses that could harm the environment. What guides the policy is the idea is that less pollution can be output if it is stopped at its source. The question is, are the rules of the policy being efficiently enforced? The short answer being yes, but it could be improved which will later be discussed. The overall goal of the policy is to vastly reduce the amount of pollution put out by industries. Why it is the relevant or important to learn or study this topic/policy or decision? This topic/policy has become more relevant because of how drastically we need change the way we produce things. The environment that we so heavily depend on is slowly being threatened. The Pollution Prevention Act is a response to the fact that we need to leave American soil better than we found for the benefit of future generations.

Outline

Introduction

a. Introduction

b. Give broad background into the policy

c. Thesis

Part 1

1. Discussion on how and why the policy was proposed and who proposed it.

2. Decisions that went into the creation of the policy.

3. The short-term and long-term goals of the policy.

Part 2

1. Obstacles

2. How it the policy has affected various industries.

3. Consequences