Milestone 3 blog post

Annabelle Crawford

College of Arts & Sciences, Regent University

ECON 290: Political Economy

Dr. Jeff Bajah

10 October 2022

School Choice

Goals for this Milestone

1. What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the

decision, policy, program

Rules for school choice depend on the state and local school board. There are many options that parents can choose for school choice. What seems to impact school choice primarily is preferences. For example, according to the Code of Virginia, Title 22.1 rules depend on the type of school, whether public, private, charter or homeschooled. The U.S. offers “open enrollment” to all students (Davis, 2013, p.34).

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

Parents have input in school choice in deciding what schooling option is best for their children. Districts for public schools must notify parents if their child can transfer schools and provide opportunities for “low-income families” (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). In general, the state must give parents all information so parents can choose the best schooling option. So, parents’ input in school choice seems to be based on what the government allows.

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

The groups of people most impacted by school choice are low-income families and families with special-needs students. With school choice, parents with special-need children can determine what public school or other school option would be best for their education. School choice benefits families in this situation, but low-income families may have fewer options. The best option is using “state-approved supplemental educational services providers in the area” (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). So, while they have some options, they are still limited to the school in their district. For example, it can be more challenging for low-income families to send their children to a private school as costs increase.

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

Some of the unintended consequences of school choice can be segregation. According to Harvard’s Graduate School of Education research, “Researchers found that many parents choose magnet schools on the basis of racial composition and cultural similarity” (1995), based on data from Montgomery County, Maryland. There is a pull for white parents to choose schools with “higher white enrollment,” and the same for black parents(Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1995). School choice doesn’t want to segregate but is built to include all racial backgrounds.

Concept Questions

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

There isn’t a vote for school choice, but the decision-makers for school choice are voted on. In a particular aspect, polls are taken on what parents would prefer, and those polls help determine school choice. Most data shows that parents are for school choice; according to one source, “52% of parents considered finding a new or different school for at least one of their children within the past year”(National School Choice Week Team, 2022).

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

There aren’t any elections for school choice. It depends on the policymakers; for example, Virginia governor Youngkin supports school choice.

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

I would say the policy is stable as it seems most U.S. parents support school choice.

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

I don’t believe anyone involved has a disproportionate influence on the outcome.

References

Davis, J. (2013). School Choice in the States: A Policy Landscape. Council of Chief State School Officers. https://doi.org/https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542701

Studies show school choice widens inequality: Popular among parents, but little evidence that children learn more. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (1995). Retrieved October 10, 2022, from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/95/07/studies-show-school-choice-widens-inequality-popular-among-parents-little-evidence

Team, N. S. C. W. (2022, May 9). Survey shows: More than half of American families look(ING) for a new school - Winter 2022. National School Choice Week. Retrieved October 10, 2022, from https://schoolchoiceweek.com/how-parents-feel-about-school-choices-2022/#:~:text=69%20percent%20of%20parents%20say,Latino%20parents%20(72%20percent).

US Department of Education (ED). (2009, January 14). School choices for parents. Home. Retrieved October 10, 2022, from https://www2.ed.gov/parents/schools/choice/definitions.html

Virginia School Choice Week. Seal Pin for 74. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/proclamations/proclamation-list/virginia-school-choice-week.html

Virginia law. Code of Virginia Code - Chapter 14. Pupils. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title22.1/chapter14/ Virginia law. Code of Virginia Code - Chapter 14. Pupils. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title22.1/chapter14/

Presentation

Because the instructions said that we should have a "visual component as well as audio, so if you are using a webcam for the video that only shows you speaking, please attach your PowerPoint slide(s) (or screenshot images of them) to the post as well so everyone can see them," I am posting here and on the blog site, as well as unload the attachments on the site for grading. I do not see where the other classmates are posting for all to see.

Please see my video at https://youtu.be/Bg9XI_iGt7w

Enjoy!

Ashley Taylor

ECON 290: Political Economy

Dr. Bajah

October 3rd, 2022

Policy: American Rescue Plan

Concept Questions:

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

The decision-making process for the American Rescue Plan follows the legislation process. So yes, the American Rescue Plan did have a voting aspect to the decision-making process. I mentioned in my milestone two that both the house and the senate have to vote on the policy before it even gets sent to the president to sign or veto (U.S. House of Representatives).

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

Based on when the house and the senate voted on the decision for the policy, I would say the process was quite fast for a multilayered system (U.S. House of Representatives, 2022). This is important because, considering the circumstances of the economic atmosphere, the speed of the decision was crucial to maintain not only health standards for the virus but also to maintain living standards in a time of economic distress.

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

• The U.S. Citizens’ health and living standards were what the American Rescue Plan was compromising. The entirety of the policy aims at supporting those in need of assistance at a time of distress. So really, the compromise is how much assistance the U.S. citizens needed.

• As mentioned before, the legislative system is what determined the outcome of this policy. It could have easily been vetoed by the president or changed by the judicial system. So yes, the American Rescue Plan could have been changed in just a matter of votes.

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

The decision-making process of the American Rescue Plan does not have a disproportionate influence because the policy gets passed through the different levels of the judicial system. Each party involved in deciding on the policy can agree or disagree with the presented policy. Though you could argue that the party who started the process has more say because they are the ones that initiated the policy. But I think giving the power to say no puts the power in the hands of each party.

Sources

U.S. House of Representatives (2022). The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (H.R. 1319). House Budget Committee Democrats. Retrieved from https://budget.house.gov/american-rescue-plan-act-2021-hr-1319

U.S. House of Representatives. (n.d.). The Legislative Process. The legislative process. Retrieved from https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process#:~:text=First%2C%20a%20representative%20sponsors%20a,bill%20moves%20to%20the%20Senate.

United States Government. (2021). American Rescue Plan. Retrieved from The White House. ,https://www.whitehouse.gov/american-rescue-plan/

Milestone 3

Logan Reichelt

College of Arts & Sciences, Regent University

ECON 290: Political Economy

Dr. Bajah

October 2, 2022

Milestone 3

Goals for this Milestone

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

   1. In order to be made into a law, the bill must follow the voting process as outlined in the United States Constitution. The bill is first proposed by a sponsor within the House of Representatives and, if it passes the majority vote, it moves to the Senate. The Senate reviews the bill and conducts one final majority vote, where, if passed, the bill then becomes law. Another set of rules that impact the policy are federal drug laws. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 introduced the formal scheduling of drugs into different groups and outlined which substances were illegal to possess and/or consume within the United States (“Drug Policy”, n.d.). The bill seeks to alter the penalties associated with many drug crimes, as well as potentially remove certain drugs, such as marijuana, from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of scheduled drugs.

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

   1. Citizens, especially those who support recreational drug usage, are able to vote in representatives and senators to advocate their views within the federal lawmaking process. State representatives and senators are also susceptible to lobbying by particular interest groups, such as the marijuana industry or law enforcement interest groups.

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

   1. Drug users, medical practitioners, and the criminal justice system. Drug users will directly reap the benefits of the bill, whereas medical practitioners will indirectly receive benefits by gaining government funding. The criminal justice system will be negatively impacted because law enforcement will have more trouble trying to counter drug crimes, and correctional facilities will potentially lose funding due to decreased incarceration rates.

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

   1. The intent of this bill is to decriminalize the use of illicit drugs at the federal level and allow for drug users to receive treatment and government benefits much easier, even after being convicted. However, this bill may result in widespread drug abuse, as there will be little to no consequences for using and people will therefore not be deterred.

Concept Questions:

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

   1. Yes, the policy is currently under review by several committees after being proposed by the sponsor to the House of Representatives.

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

   1. The elections have not yet occurred, and, given how divisive the bill is, groups may not be represented as well as they would like. While many liberals are in support of the bill, there are several Democratic representatives that would still vote against it. The same is true for Republicans. Highly controversial bills make it difficult to predict the voting outcome.

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

   1. Not many compromises are being made currently; both sides are fighting to win.

   2. Law enforcement and conservative groups are resisting the policy. They believe that the bill will encourage widespread drug use and cause even more issues rather than fix them. Conservatives also point out the difficulty of funding such a large bill, as rehabilitation programs and increased benefits for drug users come at a high price. Overall, the bill is extremely unstable at its current stage. It does not have enough support to warrant a majority vote within the House or Senate yet, and it will most likely require changes and amendments to receive more support. Realistic compromises must be made to reach some sort of desired outcome.

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

   1. It does not seem that any one group has significantly more influence than the others. Many different interest groups are fighting for drug decriminalization, but they have the burden of proving that the bill is worth it. Meanwhile, law enforcement, correctional facilities, and others that oppose the bill only have to uphold the current laws. Change will be difficult.

References

Drug policy. DEA. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-policy

Straughan, D. (2021, June 17). The Drug Policy Reform Act would fundamentally change US Drug Policy. Interrogating Justice. Retrieved September 19, 2022, from https://interrogatingjustice.org/ending-mass-incarceration/drug-policy-reform-act/

Regent University

Econ 290

Milestone 3

Parental Rights in Education Act

Policy explained:

The bill has two main policy points: one preventing the discussion of sexual material in the class of young students, and two, giving parents more control over the education of their children. The first part of the bill states, “Classroom instruction by school personnel 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)

Goals for this Milestone:

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

The rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision surround legislative procedures of the Florida State Legislature. First, the bill must be introduced by a lawmaker and pass a committee hearing. Then, it must be introduced before the Florida House, debated, and passed before going to the Senate for the same procedure. Finally, it is signed by the governor.

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

In a sense, the citizens of Florida had input on the decision because they were the ones that elected the lawmakers that created the law into office.

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

The groups most impacted by the decision are schools, young students, teachers, and parents.

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

Some of the unintended consequences are that it has caused a national debate regarding issues that are not relevant to the bill, including things like LGBT+ policies that are not discussed in the law. Furthermore, it has dramatically stoked the culture wars in the country.

Concept Questions:

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

Yes, it was voted on by the Legislature and passed.

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

There were no elections per se for the passage of this bill, but Republicans outnumber Democrats in the legislature by about a 2-1 margin. Florida has been shifting more Republican, so this indeed represents the Florida electorate. The House of Representatives is the lower house of the state legislature. It consists of 120 members elected from single-member districts, on a partisan basis, to two-year terms. Senators in even-numbered districts were elected to two-year terms in 2012 (following the 2010 Census), and senators in odd-numbered districts will be elected to two-year terms in 2022.

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

Florida, under the leadership of Ron DeSantis, has been known to be a solidly red state, meaning Republicans hold all the power. Because of this, no compromise was made, and the bill was passed along party lines. There has been extreme resistance to the policy. LGBT rights groups and other mainstream companies have pushed back on the bill and called it “discriminatory.” The policy is safe as long as Republicans control the Florida Legislature, which it appears they will for several more years. In addition, the bill has survived all legal challenges, so it appears it will be in place for quite a while.

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

Not particularly. If anything, the Republicans would have disproportionate influence because they passed the bill without Democratic support.

References:

Gollon, B. C. (2022, April 29). What's really in the parental rights in education bill. AskFlagler. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://askflagler.com/whats-really-in-the-parental-rights-in-education-bill

Milestone 3 Blog Post

Daphne Snover

Regent University

2 October, 2022

1. What are the rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the

decision, policy, program

1. The United States government has the most directly influential role on Universal Healthcare policy. Its enactment entirely depends on the government officials and the people who elect them. Because the implementation of Universal Healthcare would be a federal-level policy where the federal government controls the expenditure of the proposed healthcare system, there is quite a bit of constitutional red tape that must be cut through before it can become a reality (Amadeo, 2022). The federal government is restrained by the legal decision of 2012 in NFIB v. Sebelius where it was ruled that the federal government cannot force anyone to buy insurance (NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 2012, cited in Rosenbloom, 2020)

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

   1. The people influence politicians, who then influence policy. Although there is desire from many parties for this policy to become a reality, it has not yet. The people of the United States are those who would be affected by this policy. If the politicians were to listen to those who would be most impacted by such a policy, they would in turn use their positions to push the government into action on it. However, because this would include a challenge to a constitutional ruling and a subsequent Senate majority in favor of such a policy, it remains to be seen whether or not Universal Healthcare is a truly realistic notion for our nation (Rosenbloom, 2020).

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

   1. Those who are most impacted by Universal Healthcare policy are those who are in “vulnerable communities”, those who cannot currently afford good healthcare insurance, healthcare at all, or those with chronic health conditions which require constant care and expense. This is at least 77 million people, where one in four Americans have such conditions (Bhatt and Bathija, 2018).

3. What are some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies? This will be explored in further study of the outcomes of the case studies of nations who have implement UC policies before.

References

Amadeo, K. (2022). “What is Universal Healthcare?”. The Balance.

https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211

Bhatt, Jay; Bathija, Priya. (2018). Ensuring Access to Quality Health Care in Vulnerable

Communities. Academic Medicine: September 2018 - Volume 93 - Issue 9 - p 1271-1275.

doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002254

NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 2012.

Rosenbloom, D. (2020). “The Precarious Path to Universal Health Coverage.” Human Rights

Magazine, vol. 45, no. 4. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/

human_rights_magazine_home/health-matters-in-elections/the-precarious-path-to-

universal-health-coverage/

Kirsten,

In your post, you mention that there were concerns regarding the misuse of funds from the CARES Act. In it, you mentioned the possibility that people would use the funds for purposes other than the funds should be used for, namely save it , spend it, or pay off debts. And undoubtedly they will, but for the sake of argument, don't you think there is a slight possibility that the funds will be misused to an even greater extent? In fact, I think the misuse of the COVID Small Business Loans during the pandemic proves that people will exploit the system if safeguards are not put in place.

I look forward to your final milestone and how you answer some of the questions surrounding the CARES Act.

Kaleb

Hillary,

I am really interested to see where you are going with this project! For example, I did not know that one of the side effects of anti-Russia and anti-Chinese legislation was that there are fewer long-term contracts given out by the federal government. However, I wonder if fewer contracts and goods will just have to be a necessary evil in order to avoid subsidizing the heinous acts of nations such as Russia and China. Further, is there an alternate way the U.S. can go about requisitioning the needed PPE without buying from the nations listed above?

I will be interested to see where your project leads!

Best of luck,

Kaleb

Milestone 3:

The Forces Behind the Inflation Reduction Act

Kaleb King

Regent University

October 1, 2022

Introduction

For this milestone, this paper will examine the forces behind the Inflation Reduction Act. Although supporters of this bill have been touting the I.R.A. as a referendum on the will of the American people, feelings on the bill are much more split than the supporters would have it seem. However, that is not to say there is not any support for the bill among the general public, and it is just not as unanimous as it would first appear to be. There are a few pieces of evidence as to why this might be the case. First, we will examine the history of the bill in Congress. Second, we will draw parallels with the general public and discuss some obfuscating factors that might be skewing opinions.

Firstly, the story of the I.R.A. does not begin with the passing of the bill; rather, it lies within its formation and how it got passed. Starting with the shape of the bill, it was initially introduced to the House on September 27, 2021. During this period of Biden’s presidency, his approval ratings were split right down the middle, with 50% Disapproving and 46% Approving of his performance as president (CITE REUTERS). With his approval rating as low as it was at the time and with no signs of it improving, the Democrats decided that they would take advantage of the opportunity presented to them. At the same time, they still had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and pushed as much of their agenda through. This is the case because an unspoken rule of politics is that presidential approval ratings leading up to midterms are a good indicator of how the incumbent’s party will perform. And as it was said earlier, the President’s approval rating showed no signs that it would dramatically improve. So Democrats did their best to put as much of their campaign agenda in the I.R.A. as they could. This is why the I.R.A., although ostensibly for the purpose of reducing inflation, is structured much more like a climate change bill. Therefore, this unspoken rule of politics changed the structure of the bill.

Furthermore, this bill can also be seen as a referendum on Congressional Democrat’s approval of the President. If they felt more confident in the President, they would likely be slightly more conservative with their attempts to cram down legislation. This is because if they felt secure and confident, they would be able to slowly integrate these policies over the course of the President’s term, rather than trying to get it all done at once with one piece of legislation. Moreover, because the I.R.A. was likely a product of insecurity on the part of Congressional Democrats, this bill is likely not representative of what the Democratic party at large is genuinely interested in right now.

In fact, it is not likely that mainstream Democrats had much to do with the formation of the bill in Congress anyhow. For example, this can be seen in how Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema were convinced to sign the bill. Manchin was at first staunchly opposed to the creation of the bill, as it cut back on a significant industry in his home state of West Virginia, natural gas (Everett et al., 2022 para. 2). Sinema, economically moderate within the Democratic party, opposed some specific tax increases on successful investors (Garrison & Wells, 2022 para. 2). Both of them are somewhat representative of the non-radical, economically moderate, and historically Democratic voters. And both of them thought that, initially, the Inflation Reduction Act was bad enough that they were willing to risk the ire of the elite within the Democratic Party.

However, both were won over with pork barrel deals. Sen. Sinema agreed to support the bill only after she managed to secure an agreement with her party’s leadership in order to get removed the tax increases she was so opposed to. Manchin was only won over because party leaders chose to allow for the creation of energy production within West Virginia. Therefore, it is accurate and appropriate to say that the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act had nothing to do with the will of the people. With that said, here are the big questions that will be answered in full in Milestone #4

Questions to be Answered

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

  • There are a few rules that have impacted the creation of the Inflation Reduction Act. The first is the informal rule about the presidential approval ratings. If the president was not doing so poorly in the approval ratings, then Democrats might not have felt the need to push their agenda so hard and so thoroughly.

  • Another rule that impacted the Inflation Reduction Act was the need for a simple majority in the Senate. Because of how the Senate is structured, votes on such polarizing bills as these usually cut it extremely close in the Senate, and the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act was even tighter than usual. In the current Senate, it is evenly split between 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. Therefore, securing the swing votes of Senators such as Sinema and Manchin was even more important than ever. Therefore, the Democratic leadership was likely more open to bargaining.

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

  • As mentioned earlier, the people for whom this bill was made had little to no say in its creation. And if the reaction that moderate Democrats and Republicans had to the bill is any guide, they thought that the bill would eventually become unpopular and polarizing. However, the moderate Democrats voted for the bill because of party politics, not out of any motive to represent their constituency.

  • Furthermore, it is not like the average citizen would be able to weigh in in any meaningful way, given the length and the legalese of the bill. Nothing about this bill was easy to decipher, and the bill itself was prohibitively long as well. If we assume that the voter is rational, then no one would take the time to read and ponder the full text of the bill because it would not be worth the costs associated with pursuing such a course of action.

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

  • The middle class and the upper middle class, and the lower class will be the most affected by the Inflation Reduction Act. The middle class will be affected because many of them make just enough money to be affected by some of the policy changes present within this bill, but do not make enough money to shrug off the extra burden. The lower class will be affected because this bill has caused an increase in inflation, and any cost-of-living increases caused by inflation disproportionately impact the poor.

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

  • Unsure, as research is still being conducted. However, the running hypothesis right now is that one of the bill’s unintended consequences is that there will be a massive spike in energy prices. This is because the bill artificially encourages energy producers to focus on renewable energy. However, it costs more to produce one kw/h of electricity using wind, for example, than it does with natural gas. As a result of government manipulation of the market, energy prices will go up.

• 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. As I mentioned earlier, the extremeness of the I.R.A. could be seen as a referendum on Congressional Democrat’s lack of faith in the president.

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

  • The vote, in the case of the I.R.A., was extremely close. So close, in fact, that the vice-president was forced to cast a tie-breaker vote in order to push the bill through the Senate. Therefore, given how close it was, it is unlikely that the bill was truly representative of the will of the majority of Americans.

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

  • The bill’s two most significant compromises were made to secure the vote of two centrist Democrats. One was a natural gas allowance that would allow for natural gas production in the state of West Virginia. The other was a removal of a tax that would have targeted successful investors.

  • Yes, there is significant resistance to the bill. In the House, literally zero Republicans voted for the I.R.A.; in the Senate, it was the same. The only reason it passed was because of a tie-breaker vote cast by the vice president.

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

  • Yes. Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. Sinema. Both are moderate Democrats, and both votes are necessary to get anything passed in the Senate. Therefore, if one of them disapproves of a policy, they have the power to kill the bill on the spot.

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

COVID Relief Spending. USAspending.gov. (2022, August 31). Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.usaspending.gov/disaster/covid-19?publicLaw=all

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

Everett, B., Siegel, J., & Coleman, Z. (2022, September 28). Why Manchin Backed Off On His Top Priority. POLITICO. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/28/manchin-senate-permitting-reform-00059152.

Garrison, J., & Wells, D. (2022, August 5). Sen. Kyrsten Sinema backs inflation reduction act, giving Biden the votes for Senate passage. USA Today. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/04/krysten-sinema-inflation-reduction-act-senator-democrats-vote/10234906002/

Krugman, P. (2022, September 15). Who's Afraid of the Consumer Price Index? The New York Times. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/opinion/consumer-price-index.html

Muresianu, A. (2022, September 13). How to think about IRS tax enforcement provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act. Tax Foundation. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act-irs-funding/

Probasco, J. (2022, August 16). Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Investopedia. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022-6362263

Smith, K. A. (2022, August 23). The inflation reduction act is now law-here's what it means for you. Forbes. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/inflation-reduction-act/

Spady, A. (2022, September 14). Vulnerable Democrats won't say when inflation reduction act will reduce inflation. Fox News. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vulnerable-democrats-silent-consumer-price-index-report-touting-ira-would-reduce-inflation

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, September 13). CPI Home. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

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

Blog post for Milestone 3:

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

Hillary Boyce

Regent University

October 2, 2022

Milestone 3: H.R.1466 - American PPE Supply Chain Integrity Act

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 United States Code by prohibiting the Secretary of Defense from buying products purchasing personal protective equipment (PPE) from China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, with the approval of a waiver. H.R. 1466 requires the purchase by the Federal Government of certain medical supplies and PPE from the United States.

This bill mandates many federal departments to purchase certain items from the United States, including medical supplies, PPE, and clothing. The law sets terms for PPE to include equipment such as gloves and face masks, which could present procurement and supply problems since many of these items can be bought and produced primarily in China. These changes also prohibit using federal contracting funding to secure these goods that are produced with labor from China's Region in regards to human rights issues from 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. In addition, the bill supports American manufacturing by strengthening the contracting threshold for Defense and Homeland Security purchases.

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

The rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, and program are that all PPE and clothing and select health care items purchased by several federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Veterans Affairs. In the National Council of Textile Organization (NCTO) publication, it is discussed that the legislation has broad reach covering “all related purchases by the Strategic National Stockpile, agencies within DHS like Customs and Border Protection, and the entire VA health care system, the critical demand volume needed to drive investment and sustain PPE production in the United States” (2022, p. 2).

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

Those impacted by this decision have input into the decision by lobbying for congress and ensuring that the supply access issues be known to the government. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, many guidelines implied a mandatory use of mechanical ventilators and personal protective equipment (PPE) in daily lives, schools, churches, communities, and most health care settings. “These guidelines and recommendations led to the unprecedented and almost immediate shortage of these medical products with huge socio-economic implications worldwide” (Badnjević at all, 2020, p. 1). Expanding United States capacity will ensure that hospitals and frontline workers have access to a plentiful supply of high-quality PPE.

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

The groups or people that are most impacted by these decisions or policies are the United States Small Businesses and the healthcare workers. 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 on 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.

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

“Congress instructed DOD to develop and implement a plan to reduce the country's reliance on services, supplies, or materials from China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran” (Barnett, 2022, p. 1). While this seems like a good thing, an unintended consequence has been that many government agencies are only secure very short-term contracts now with U.S. small businesses. This lack of long-term federal contracts will cause many companies to go bankrupt and be focused to terminate most of their employees. These short-term contracts usually averaging just 90-120 days. The short-term approach will not allow the industry to make significant investments in advanced manufacturing, like automated equipment to produce PPE, but manufacturers need longer-term, 3-to-5-year contracts to justify that investment.

References

Badnjević, A., Pokvić, L. G., Džemić, Z., & Bečić, F. (2020). Risks of emergency use authorizations for medical products during outbreak situations: a COVID-19 case study. BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 19(1), 1-14.

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

Milestone 3: The Economy and the CARES Act

Kristin Loewen

ECON 290

Dr. Jeff Bajah

September 4th, 2022

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

Milestone 3:

West Virginia Right to Work 2016

Ryley Garrido

Econ 290

Dr. Bajah

10/2/2022

Goals for this Milestone:

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

   1. The West Virginia Legislature has rules which guide both the House of Delegates and the Senate. Any member can introduce the bill, it is then referred to committee, presented to the Senate if passed from committee, read three times, voted on, sent to the House, where they then send it to committee, present it to the House if it passed committee, they then read three times, vote on it, and if approved, send it to the governor. In addition to these, there are also rules which guide the committees of each chamber.

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

   1. Citizens voted for their reps who voted on the bill. In addition, citizens and interest groups were able to lobby their representatives in order to try and persuade their vote on the bill.

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

   1. Workers, unions, and businesses. The state and the average citizen will also be impacted based on the impact of the bill on the state’s economy.

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

   1. None that I am aware of.

Concept Questions:

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

   1. There were state representatives who were all voted on and, in addition, they voted on the bill itself.

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

   1. West Virginia switched their senate system in 2010 so that each of the 17 districts elects one of their two senators every two years. In addition, they have 100 delegates in the House with some districts having up to 5 delegates elected in a given district. Whether these multimember districts are fair is up for debate. I have not found anything saying they’re unfair, but gerrymandering is usually likely when there is more than one or two districts in a state. However, creating a truly “fair” district is hard to determine as there will always be a bias by whoever creates the map of districts.

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

   1. The Unions avidly opposed the bill, but most businesses and workers supported it.

   2. In regard to the bill’s stability, it overrode a gubernatorial veto, but that only takes a simple majority rather than a 2/3 majority like in the US Congress. The bill has withstood a WV Supreme Court challenge in 2020 as well as other bills seeking to remove it. The main reason that the law hasn’t been overturned yet is due to the fact that Republicans have been able to maintain a majority in at least one of the two chambers since the bill passed. If Democrats are able to take control of both chambers and either override a gubernatorial veto, or also have the governor, then the Right to Work law could be overturned.

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

   1. Not that I’m aware of. Unless the unions have a larger sway over the democrat members of the legislature than the average citizen does. (via campaign funding, etc.)

Works Cited

Eren, O., Onda, M., & Unel, B. (2019). Effects of FDI on entrepreneurship: Evidence from right-to-work and non-right-to-work states. Labour Economics, 58, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.04.008

Oas, D., McCord, M., & Popejoy, S. L. (2016). Right-to-Work: A Legal Rights Perspective. Labor Law Journal, 67(3), 437-444. https://ezproxy.regent.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/right-work-legal-rights-perspective/docview/1820275286/se-2

Milestone :3

Public Choice Analysis of Texas House Bill 3287

Timothy Nyenjeri

Regent University

October 02, 2022

Introduction

The State of Texas has a three-tier system to regulate alcohol distribution and sales. The system separates brewers, distributors, and retailers whereby the brewers must contract with distributors in order to sell their product. In 2013 the Texas legislature passed SB 518 that allowed small craft brewers to sell ale to consumers on the brewers premise. HB3287, an “act relating to the sale of beer and ale by the holders of Manufacturer’s Licenses and Brewer’s permits,” introduced an annual cap on the number of barrels manufactured and sold to consumers on premise after which, the brewer must contract with a distributor. The cap aggregates across different premises owned by the brewer whether directly or indirectly.

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

The rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the decision, policy, and program are: Chapter 105 of the Texas Alcoholic Bevarage Code, Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S 460 (2005) in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the “Texas three-tier system of regulating the alcoholic beverage industry is unquestionably legitimate,” Texas SB 518 “an act relating to the authority of certain brewers and manufactures to sell beer and ale to ultimate consurers.HB3287, an “act relating to the sale of beer and ale by the holders of Manufacturer’s Licenses and Brewer’s permits,”

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

The decision was effected as a vote in the Texas legislature. After several amendments the vote for HB 3287 was: 115 Yeas, 30 Nays, 2 Present, not voting. Those impacted by the decisions had an input by testifying before the Texas House Licensing & Administrative Procedures Committee during a public hearing of the bill on 04/17/2017. For example the Texas association of Manufacturers testfied against the bill on the same side as the Texas Policy Foundation. Testfying for the Bill was Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas along others like Texas Package Stores Association.

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

Due to the nature of the texas three-tier system, HB 3287 impacted virtually all groups across the system i.e. licensed breweries, distributors, and retailers of alcohol in the state of Texas. The Bill also impacted the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission by modifying existing laws and regulations.

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

The intent of HB3287 was to ensure the integrity of the three-tier system remained intact where manufacturers, distributors and retailers are all separate. The effect of HB3287 is that it nullified the benefits of SB 518 and instead created a situation “manufacturers are paying to move their product from on-site storage to their on-site taprooms, while the distributor never sees or comes into contact with the product.” (Pellegrin 2019, 210) In other words the law created a tax on brewers.

Concept Questions:

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

There is a voting aspect to this policy as it was voted on first in commitee and finally by the Texas House before being signed by the Governor.

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

HB 3287 was voted for by a majority of 115 against 30 Nays.

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

The authors and co-authors of HB3287 were from both the Democrats and Republicans. This bipartisanship is reflected in the vote on the bill at the committee stage where the vote was 9-0 to advance the bill to the next stage. As stated above the vote was overwhelmingly for the bill that a few votes would not have made a difference.

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

I am not sure. My research suggest that the distributor's lobby group seems very powerful and might have had a disproportionate influence on the outcome.

References

Licensing & Administrative Procedures Committee. (n.d.). HB3287 Witness List House Committee Report. 85(R) HB 3287 - House Committee report version - witness list. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/witlistbill/html/HB03287H.htm

Pellegrin, Daniel, Micro-Brew, Macro-Fees: Texas Law Favors Beer Distributors While Curbing Growth and Investment in the Nation's Third Largest Craft Beer Market (April 4, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3412197 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3412197

Milestone 3: Analysis of HR 5376, The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Macgregor Langston

Economics 290: Political Economy

Regent University

October 2, 2022

HR 5376 Explained

Between the pull out of Afghanistan and the invasion of Ukraine, as well as inflation and sky-high gas prices, the first year and a half of President Biden’s administration has been quite chaotic. The current economic turmoil has made Americans eager for any relief measures the government can provide. On August 16, 2022, 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, para. 1). However, the contents of this bill diverge greatly from its title. This 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, para. 5). Unfortunately, this bill is the epitome of the legislature using a legitimate issue to pursue ulterior agendas.

The contents of the bill reflect the establishment’s current economic and political agenda. First, the bill establishes a 15% minimum tax rate for corporations (Smith, 2022, para. 7). Second, it reduces the cost of drugs for beneficiaries of Medicare (Smith, 2022, para. 8). Third, it greatly increases funding for IRS tax enforcement, allocating $80 billion for the agency over the next 10 years (Smith, 2022, para. 9). Fourth, government subsidies from the Affordable Care Act were extended to 2025 (Smith, 2022, para. 10). 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, para. 11).

The White House claims the newly passed bill “will lower costs for families, combat the climate crisis, reduce the deficit, and finally ask the largest corporations to pay their fair share” (By The Numbers, 2022, para. 1). However, a study done just after the passing of the bill already indicated it will not lower inflation (Smith, 2022, para. 14). In fact, as the effects of the bill are further studied and documented, it seems it will not only have no positive effect, but may “worsen inflation by constraining the productive capacity of the economy (Durante et al., 2022, para. 2).” Research from the Tax Foundation indicates that by raising taxes on work and investment, the Inflation Reduction Act could reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 0.2% (Durante et al., 2022, para. 16).

The obvious shift in purpose of the final bill is a disappointment to many Americans who sought economic relief. However, some are still highly optimistic about the results of the bill, seeking to justify its projected downsides. Climate activists praise the bill as one of the first major legislations Congress has passed on the climate change problem (Lindwall, 2022, para. 1). Moreover, they argue the long-term benefits of reduced emissions and newly stimulated growth of the green energy industry will offset the short-term increase in economic strain (Lindwall, 2022, para. 2). Moreover, those seeking affordable healthcare for American citizens see this bill as a step in the right direction (Grover, 2022 para. 1). However, it is important to note that the groups most vocally in favor of this bill are those which have the largest stake in the agenda it furthers, and no evidence has been presented to show how these benefits would outweigh the problems the bill will cause.

Rules Guiding this Policy

This bill facilitates President Biden’s social and climate change agenda with broadly sweeping rules. Now that the bill has passed the House and Senate and has been signed into law by the president, the legislation is being carried out. As discussed above, its dictates include raising the minimum tax rate for corporations, reducing drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries, majorly bolstering the IRS, extending the subsidies of the ACA, and increasing climate change incentives. 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 very effectively enforced.

Sentiments and Opinions Surrounding HR 5376

For the average citizen, the misleading name of this bill and its ultimate effect are highly disappointing. However, activists for climate change and affordable healthcare have expressed sweeping support for the bill, complaining only that it does not further those agendas enough. Within the government, particularly the Democratic party, 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. However, there is also great backlash from Republican lawmakers who take particular issue with the provisions for the IRS (Burns, 2022).

Interested Parties and Stakeholders

1) The first interested party regarding this policy is the national government itself. 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, para. 4). The specific groups within the government who benefit most from the bill include the Democratic party, the IRS, and the Biden administration.

2) The second group that benefits from this legislation includes climate change activists. Those who feel climate change is an existential threat see this bill as a landmark success for their cause.

3) The third group includes all of the so-called green energy companies who will be receiving more rents and financial benefits from this bill.

4) The fourth group consists of all those who rely on government health care, particularly those under Medicare.

5) The fifth consists of corporations who are hurt by this bill and would have benefited from this bill’s failure to pass.

6) Finally, the original and largest group to have a stake in this policy are the American people who have been suffering from inflation and were promised relief with this bill. These citizens are being hurt instead of helped by this legislation.

Concept Questions:

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

a. Citizens did not directly vote for this policy. However, citizens did vote for the congressmen and senators, as well as the president, all of whom created and voted on this bill.

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

a. As the White House explained, the President and Congressional Democrats worked to write and pass this legislation (By The Numbers, 2022, para. 1). With the current advantage for Democrats in the Congress, there was little resistance to this bill. These decision makers are representative of all liberals who voted these leaders into their current offices, but they are not as representative of the more center leaning Democrats, Independents and Republicans who do not support what this legislation truly addresses.

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

a. Due to the Democratic majority in the senate, few compromises needed to be made to pass this bill. The primary compromise is advertising the bill as a reduction to inflation, and if this was the original intent of the bill, the compromise was to replace its entire contents with the democratic party’s agenda.

b. There has been some resistance from Republican lawmakers, but the majority of resistance has come from conservative groups and citizens who understand the bill’s contents and do not align with its agenda.

c. Now that this bill is passed, it is highly stable and may be changed only by the supreme court ruling it unconstitutional, or a future bill changing what this bill legislates.

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

a. Considering the current presidential administration and Democratic majority in the legislature, there was a clearly disproportionate influence on its drafting and passing.

Conclusion

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

Burns, T. (2022, August 10). GOP rails against IRS funding in Inflation Reduction Act. The Hill. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://thehill.com/policy/3594879-gop-rails-against-irs-funding-in-inflation-reduction-act/

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/

Grover, A. (2022, August 17). The inflation reduction act will cut health care costs for some patients. but we need to do more. AAMC. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/inflation-reduction-act-will-cut-health-care-costs-some-patients-we-need-do-more

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

Lindwall, C. (2022, August 29). With the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress takes a monumental step in the Climate Fight. NRDC. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.nrdc.org/stories/inflation-reduction-act-congress-takes-monumental-step-climate-fight?gclid=CjwKCAjw4JWZBhApEiwAtJUN0OSmUx9YEDD0B2TzkluL_vrWkQkkKKjDGTU53AsVQvV78F6AcxwjExoCND8QAvD_BwE

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/

The United States Government. (2022, August 15). By the numbers: The Inflation Reduction Act. The White House. Retrieved October 1, 2022, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/15/by-the-numbers-the-inflation-reduction-act/

Milestone 3:

Public Choice Analysis of H.R.2034

J. Cooper Stephens

Regent University

September 18, 2022

Milestone 2: Public Choice Analysis of H.R.2034

Explaining the policy: H.R.2034

H.R.2034 is titled “Income-Driven Student Loan Forgiveness Act”. As such, this bill seeks to deliver targeted relief to students based on their income. Now, this bill also has limits on who is eligible for relief. According to the bill, if they, naturally, have an outstanding Federal Student Loan, but they must also have filed a federal tax return for the most recent year (Lawson, 2021). In order to be eligible, the bill states the student must also be employed currently, or have been employed within the last three years (Lawson, 2021). Furthermore, the bill begins to specify the “income-driven” aspects of the bill, stating that an unmarried person whose adjusted gross income does not exceed $100,000, or $200,000 of joint household income of a married borrower, shall be eligible (Lawson, 2021). The bill likewise clarifies that in the event that the borrower is married and files their federal taxes separately, their personal adjusted gross income cannot exceed $100,000 and that their spouse’s income is not considered (Lawson, 2021). The bill also states that “the determinations under paragraph (2)” (the paragraph pertaining to who is eligible) “shall be based on the Federal income tax return filed by the borrower for the most recent tax year ending before the date of the borrower’s application for forgiveness under this section” (Lawson, 2021).

We must now turn to the question of how the loan is being forgiven. The bill states that as soon as the Secretary of Education confirms that an applicant meets the requirements of the bill, “for each eligible Federal student loan of the borrower that is held by the Department of Education, cancel the outstanding balance of principal, interest, and fees due on the loan; and for each eligible Federal student loan of the borrower that is not held by the Department of Education—through the holder of a loan, assume the obligation to repay the outstanding balance of principal, interest, and fees due on the loan; and upon assuming such obligation, cancel the outstanding balance of such principal, interest, and fees” (Lawson, 2021). However, the borrower must submit whatever information the Secretary of Education may require as stated in the bill. Additionally, if a borrower is eligible for more forgiveness than he or she has outstanding loans, they are not able to receive any refunds on loans already paid, the bill states. The amount forgiven is not allowed to be included in the borrower’s gross income for tax purposes, as per the bill. Additionally, the bill requires that the Secretary inform a borrower if they were ineligible and state all the specific reasons why.

To make sure borrowers are aware of this act, the bill states that “not later than 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education, in consultation with institutions of higher education and lenders and holders of Federal student loans, shall take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that borrowers who have outstanding eligible Federal student loans are aware of the loan forgiveness program authorized by this Act” (Lawson, 2021). The bill clarifies that this information must be easily accessible by the public, easily understandable, and that the information makes all borrowers aware that they must submit an application to the Secretary of Education in order to be eligible (Lawson, 2021). Much talk has been made of President Biden’s recent attempts to cancel student loan debt. It is unclear whether or not Biden’s plan and this bill are the same. However, this bill does not give the specific amount that most sites are mentioning, such as $20,000 (Minsky, 2022). It is likewise in question as to whether or not the President even has the power Biden is attempting to wield (Romboy, 2022).

Rules Guiding this Policy

The rules of procedure of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate govern this bill. As it stands now, this bill has only been introduced in the US House of Representatives. The bill will be read to the House, it will be debated on and amended, and then a vote will be held. If the bill passes the House, it moves to the Senate where it goes through the same process of being introduced, debated, amended, and voted upon. If the bill also survives the Senate, it will be sent to the Executive, who, in this case, is the President of the United States. Joseph R. Biden currently holds this office as of January 2021 and will remain in this office until January 2025. These rules are effectively enforced, generally speaking. However, there are times when Congress is circumvented by way of Executive Order, or by the bureaucracy simply taking orders from the President without an act of Congress.

Some specificity is required to more fully understand the rules guiding this policy. One aspect of the rules of this policy, which cannot and should not be understated is the role of a committee. Congressional committees are numerous to an extraordinary degree. If I recall correctly, every single member of congress is involved in at least one committee. In many ways, a committee has a disproportionate influence on the outcome of a bill when compared to congress as a whole. The committees have immense power over what a bill will look like when it is brought before congress. They have the power to vote on and amend a bill before it is ever seen by congress as a whole (How a bill becomes a law, n.d.). A bill can be further delayed or outright stopped by the Speaker of The House, who has the sole power to decide when or if a bill comes before the House and the same is true of the Senate, with the powers of the Speaker being given to the Majority Leader (How a bill becomes a law, n.d.). And even further, once both the House and Senate agree on a bill, as we all know, then the President must sign the bill into law without vetoing the bill. A President can also “pocket-veto” a bill by simply refusing to sign it into law for up to ten days and if congress has adjourned, the bill does not become law (How a bill becomes a law, n.d.). If congress wishes to overrule a Presidential veto, then two thirds of its members must vote to pass the bill into law (How a bill becomes a law, n.d.).

Throughout the entire process of passing a bill into law, voting is required on all levels, from committee, to both houses, to the President. In many ways, the vote is bedrock in which our republic functions. Of course, we elect our leaders in the hope that they will vote in our interest. However, as we all can see, that doesn’t always happen. It is difficult to see whether or not those who are elected actually represent the group. It is furthermore difficult to know what exactly the group is in this situation. Is the group the American people as a whole? Or is the group the people that elected the Senators and Congressmen. Depending on who you ask, the answer changes. Some Senators and Representatives vote for what they believe to be in the best interest of the country. Others believe that they should only represent the district or state that they were elected by.

I expect fierce resistance to this policy. At the same time, I expect fierce support. Ultimately, whether or not this policy passes is going to be determined by who wins a majority by the time it comes to the floor. In the House and the Senate, I expect that its life could depend on a mere handful of votes. Maybe a dozen or so votes could spare or strike down the bill in the House, and one or two in the senate would be sufficient. It remains to be seen as to whether or not a compromise will be made.

Public Sentiment on Student Loan Forgiveness

There is an air of romance that surrounds a policy like this one. Students often wishfully dream for the day that “Uncle Sam” will come and whisk their financial troubles with regards to their Student Loans. This seems to be the general sentiment of the populace in the United States as well. As college tuition prices have sky-rocketed over the course of the past few years, disproportionate to even the massive levels of inflation we have seen in 2022, the public outcry for federal student loan forgiveness has been growing stronger and stronger. At the same time, those who chose to not attend college have been outspoken against this policy from the very beginning. Their general claim is one that is very understandable.

Debt is never forgiven, they say, it can only be transferred. Those that did not attend college believe that they will now be forced to pay for those who did through an increase in their taxes. It isn’t difficult to see why. The federal government loses out on millions if they forgive federal student loans. The logical choice, then, is to raise taxes to compensate. While this policy may not have this exact goal, we can expect it to be an unintended side effect. We all know that the federal government has a chronic overspending problem, and a loss in loan revenue might hinder their ability to overspend as much as they might wish. Who can remember the last time the federal government simply took a loss on the chin, so to speak? They have run nothing but continual deficits since the year 2000, and the surpluses then do not make up for the massive spending we have seen over the last 20+ years (Amadeo, n.d.).

Interested Parties and Stakeholders

1) The first interested party is the individual who will receive access to loan forgiveness as well as their families, who may have been aiding the borrower with their debt. I would say that this group of individuals has the greatest stake in this policy because they are the ones who would experience the most direct impact.

2) Those who did not go to college are the second interested party. They believe that they will be taxed at a higher rate to fund those who went to college.

3) Colleges and universities would also be an interested party. If these institutions understand that any debt the students go into with the federal government may be forgiven (or transferred to the taxpayer) then it will give more students an incentive to attend college. Likewise, these institutions are now able to raise their prices even higher, requiring the student to take out more loans to pay for it. The student has their loans forgiven, and the college/university gets their money either way. To use the old example of Bootleggers and Baptists, colleges would be the bootleggers.

4) Politicians are likewise an interested party. By voting in favor of this bill, a representative or senator from a district or state, respectively, can use that as a platform to pander for more votes by claiming to stand up for students. Politicians on the other side, from states and districts with higher populations of non-college-educated people will have an incentive to vote against the bill in order to stand up for the rights of their citizenry. To use the example of Bootleggers and Baptists, politicians would be the baptists.

The influence those affected have varies from group to group. Those that want their loans forgiven and those that did not take out loans have the effect of their vote. They decide who decides, in short. The Colleges/Universities have the power to lobby congress and the staff likewise have the power to vote, themselves, The Politicians have the most direct influence. It is their vote that determines the fate of H.R.2034.

Institutional structure

The institutional structure which this bill has to be seen through is Congress. Members of Congress must contend with special interest groups as well as the citizenry. Failure to correctly calculate their vote could prove catastrophic to their future election prospects. A bill such as this will be highly contested by individual citizens and the Congressmen that represent them. It seems logical to me that the introduction of the colleges/universities, who I suspect will act in favor of the bill, will be the deciding factor in whether or not this bill passes. Congress moves slowly, and so even though this bill was introduced in March of 2021, it is still possible it may see the House or Senate Floor.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it remains in question as to whether or not this bill will survive. I must leave it up to the individual as to whether or not it should. Regardless of my personal biases against this bill (despite being part of the demographic this bill seeks to benefit), I suspect that this bill, but more likely a bill similar to it, will, in the end, pass both houses of Congress and given President Biden’s outspoken support of canceling student loans, it (or a similar act) will be enacted. However, according to Skopos Labs this bill has only a 3% chance of going into effect (H.R. 2034: Income-driven student loan forgiveness act, 2021). One can suppose that only time and the ever changing will of the masses will determine that outcome.

References

Amadeo, K. (n.d.). US budget deficit by year compared to GDP, debt, and events. The Balance. Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

How a bill becomes a law. National Parent Teacher Association. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://www.pta.org/home/advocacy/advocacy-resources/Advocacy-Toolkit/How-a-Bill-Becomes-a-Law

H.R. 2034: Income-driven student loan forgiveness act. GovTrack.us. (2021, March 18). Retrieved September 18, 2022, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr2034/text

Lawson, A. (2021, March 18). Text - H.R.2034 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Income-driven student ... Congress.gov. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2034/text

Minsky, A. S. (2022, August 26). Biden announces historic student loan forgiveness of up to $20,000 and extension of student loan pause: Key details. Forbes. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2022/08/24/biden-announces-historic-student-loan-forgiveness-and-extension-of-student-loan-pause-key-details/?sh=1340a011126c

Romboy, D. (2022, August 26). What Nancy Pelosi said then and now about a president's power to forgive student loans. Deseret News. Retrieved September 4, 2022, from https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/8/26/23323450/nancy-pelosi-president-power-forgive-student-loans-joe-biden

Alissa,

Very interesting legislation you chose to write about. I specifically find the unintended consequences you listed to be interesting. I knew of this bill and the push for electric and hybrid vehicles in California, but I had not yet considered the fully electric cars needing to be charged at night through solar energy. That is a great point and something to be considered by Governor Newsom and his counsel. I am aware of the hazard lithium battery powered vehicles pose and it is not a small consideration. There are still many obstacles to work through to fully support this bill but I think it is a great step toward bettering our environment. Great work!

Haley Sumner

The notable rules or benchmarks that influenced and impacted this policy are narrowly visible. The reason for this is due to a lack of a clearly defined delta that would serve as a benchmark when measuring affected people. Meaning, the Federal government doesn’t manually count the number of LGBT minorities affected by inequalities within, for example, the healthcare system. They can’t due to time, fiscal constraints, and, most importantly, there isn’t enough data available to set a benchmark standard to then measure who is below threshold. The reason I used the healthcare example, is that it’s a large part of what this policy sets out to correct regarding inequalities for LGBT community members. One might then wonder where the Federal Government is receiving its data from, to which the answer may be surprising. The Federal Government relies on third-party sources such as LGBT activist groups to gather those numbers. This makes the most sense since the activist groups benefit the most from higher numbers. The Federal Government also benefits from higher numbers as it makes a meager minority look much larger, thus emboldening the policy. This logic brings the reader to think about a larger topic on voting aspects. While the Executive Order was simply an order by Presidential decree, it sets the stage for other decisions-making scenarios for which votes would count. One example, Presidential elections. In his book, The Givers, David Callahan writes, “Giving for LGBT causes more than doubled from 2005 to 2014, to $153 million,” (Callahan, 2017) as he explains how rich megadonors shape political policy. Furthermore, this Executive Order essentially guarantees votes from the LGBT minority groups and donors. Trickling down to the Federal and State representative level, this theory holds true as whoever is in favor of this policy also has gained votes. While the LGBT community, with the help of the Federal Government, attempts to inflate their numbers they are still not representative of the majority.

It may go without saying now, but it’s worth noting that the current administration has lost touch with the majority’s desires on this topic. So naturally, there is resistance to the policy on many fronts. The policy outlines the expansion of the Federal Government’s role in citizens’ lives and establishes new rules for increased government regulation in institutions. To gain a better understanding of how it interferes with the individual’s life, one must understand what the policy means when it says, for example, “the DHHS is to protect LGBTI+ individuals’ access to medically necessary care from harmful State and local laws and practices…” or that the Education Department will, “…lead an initiative to address discrimination against LGBTQI+ students.” (Executive Order 14075) The main pushback one can see here is from parents, both with and without children in that community. Parents of children who identify as LGBT are being subtly pushed out of the decision-making process when their child’s health is in question. The Washington Examiner rightly points out that this Executive Order tries to establish, “a national standard that takes away from doctors the ability to diagnose their patients, instead handing the power of self-diagnosis to disturbed child patients.” (Washington Examiner, 2022) It is becoming more widely known that physicians and pediatricians are more likely to listen to the child in this instance instead of a cognizant adult. Further, there is pushback on the institutional front as well mainly from those who believe the power of the central government should be rather limited. However, a recent White House request for information details that the Federal Government, pursuant to Executive Order 14075, “required the co-chairs of the Interagency Working Group on Equitable Data to establish a subcommittee on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGI) data,” which it then claimed was subordinate to the National Science and Technology Council, pursuant to the Executive Order 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. By this time one can see the trend that is occurring in which the Federal Government continues to create more federally controlled institutions inside other federally controlled institutions. This logically creates more government oversight on outside institutions to ensure policy is being abided by. However, this practice is not sustainable and unpopular both politically and socially. Policies such as this one only appeal to government representatives furthest to the Left thus excluding the ideologies of other center-left representatives and their constituents. This, too, is socially irresponsible as attempts by the Federal Government to remove all inequality of outcome will most certainly lead to more inequalities.

It is most certainly true that those who are involved in creating the collective action policies such as Executive Order 14075 stand to benefit the most. We have already highlighted the ways in which those are involved have a disproportionate influence on the outcome. One being that this order required no vote and therefore there was no influence. However, a small minority along with megadonors have influence within the second and third order realm.

Sources

CALLAHAN, D. (2017). Stop the Tax Breaks to Donors Who Give to Influence Policy. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 29(6), 34–35

Washington Examiner (2022, September 11). Biden's Gender Colonialism Puts US Interests, Credibility at Risk. Restoring America. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/bidens-gender-colonialism-puts-us-interests-credibility-at-risk

Request for Information; Federal Evidence Agenda on LGBTQI+ Equity (87 FR 52083), August 24, 2022.

Haley Sumner

ECON 290/Political Economy

2 October 2022

Milestone 3

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

The rules of the organization that influenced and impacted the

decision, policy, and program are Chapter 552 of the Acts of Assembly of 2021, Special Session I; § 30-19.1:4, fiscal impact statements prepared by the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission; § 18.2-208.1 to the Code of Virginia; and, § 18.2-187.1.

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

Those impacted by this decision have input into the decision by having Virginia State Delegate Aijalon Cordoza provide a fiscal impact summary on all the groups impacted by this decision apart from the public. The public who is impacted by this decision have input into the decision by introducing the idea of the bill to Virginia State Delegate Cordoza.

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

The groups or people that are most impacted by these decisions or policies are the mothers, children, paternal fathers, and falsely named fathers; the Department of Corrections; Department of Juvenile Justice; Local and regional jails; Courts; Commonwealth Attorneys; Public Defenders; and, Department of Social Services.

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

Some of the unintended consequences of these decisions or policies are putting a strain of families in addition to the impact on state-responsible (prison) bed space.

Resources

HB 1077 Paternity; genetic tests to determine parentage, relief from paternity, certain actions, penalty. Legislative Information System. (2022). Retrieved from https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?231%2Bsum%2BHB1077

Virginia Department of Social Services. (2022). Establish paternity in Virginia. Establish Paternity in Virginia - Virginia Department of Social Services. Retrieved from https://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/dcse/establishing_paternity.cgi