Jason Cannon
Unit 5
12/31/13
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/30/politics/drones-faa/index.html?hpt=po_c2
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/
The initial news article I read was on CNN. I then went to the Federal Aviation Administration website to learn more about drones and the new research cites. Within the faa.gov link there are several links to pdfs that have great information.
Synopsis:
Six drone (or unmanned aircraft) research locations have been revealed by the Federal Aviation Administration. There are several purposes behind the research centers, some of which include safety testing, finding regulation standards, testing the influence on the environment, and performance testing. Michael Huerta, the FAA administrator, said, "The important thing about today's announcement is it provides the platform for this research to really be carried out [on] a very large scale across the entire country." The FAA's actions are in accordance with the request of Congress for private drones to be safely flying in the US by 2015. There are drones in use right now, some of which are used in law enforcement and border control. To fly a drone in the airspace of the United States, one must get specific permission. Many states/groups wanted to house a research center, but only Alaska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia will contain a research center. Several of the centers will be located at Universities. Drones are becoming a big thing in the commercial world. Amazon is looking into getting drones called "octocopters" to deliver packages, but has not got permission from the FAA yet.
Comments:
I think that this whole idea of unmanned aircraft is amazing and also very useful. The article mentioned that drones are already being used in foreign lands to help fight the terrorists. The amount of money these military drones cost is probably tremendous. Military policy is probably to just get the best equipment even if it costs a ton. It is hard to find the right balance between cutting our military spending and improving our military. I think these drones are probably necessary in the war on terror, and improving the technology associated with them is important. But at what point does it become to expensive to improve the technology? I don't know if the costs of these new research centers will be categorized under military spending, but if they are, they will add a significant cost. Wherever the money is coming from for these research centers, there will need to be a lot of it.
On the FAA website it mentioned that drones "may have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or smaller than a radio-controlled model airplane." I would love to order something on Amazon and have it get to my house in 30 minutes on a small drone. That would be awesome. This idea of Amazon will probably make them a lot of money because it will cost us a lot of money. I bet the cost of getting a drone to fly my package to me would be more than the cost of my package.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 30, 2013
Large oil and gas project up for public review
Jason Cannon
Unit 5
12/30/13
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593122/Large-oil-and-gas-project-up-for-public-review.html
Unit 5
12/30/13
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593122/Large-oil-and-gas-project-up-for-public-review.html
Synopsis:
Newfield Exploration Company has wanted to do a lot more oil
and natural gas drilling in the Uintah Basin, and they are currently waiting on
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which has submitted a report to the public. If
they were allowed to expand their drilling, about 335 million oil barrels and
541,000 million ft³ of natural gas would be harvested. The
BLM denied their request in 2010, but have recently created a plan to allow
them to drill with a few restrictions based on environmental concerns. Juan Palma, a leader of the BLM, said, “This
important project milestone underscores the BLM's commitment to facilitating
oil and gas development using a balanced approach that supports energy
production on public lands in Utah where it's most appropriate.” The plan includes restrictions such as the
lowering of the impact on two types of cacti and the reducing of the affected
habitat of the western yellow-billed cuckoo from 19 acres to 1 acre. Information meetings are available around the
state in late January before there is a “45-day comment period closing”.
Comments:
I don't completely understand what needs to happen for this project to be implemented. I was somewhat confused when reading the article about what stage it is in, and how much more needs to happen for it to be put into effect. It said that the "45 day comment period" ends on February 4th, and so I guess that is when they stop accepting public opinion. I don't know if they have to follow the public's ideas or whether they are just testing what they think. I assume the project will pass because the BLM, a federal agency that helps protect the environment, came up with a plan.
I think that the BLM's approach on this environmental policy issue is great. They allow the drilling, but also try to protect the environment. I think it would be extreme to forbid this company from drilling in the Utah desert, but I also think that being aware of the environment is important. This event illustrates what environmental compromise can look like. It is important to be able to use our resources without destroying the environment.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Thousands of Utahns to lose jobless benefits next week
Jason Cannon
Unit 5
12/28/13
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593112/Thousands-of-Utahns-to-lose-jobless-benefits-next-week.html?pg=all
Synopsis:
With the recent budget plan that Congress passed, federal long term unemployment aid will be cut. This federal aid program was set up by President Bush, and it helps those who are unemployed longer than the individual state programs cover. It is an extension of the state unemployment aid programs, which usually last for about 6 months. About 3000 Utahns and 1.3 million Americans will be directly affected by this cut. The average American unemployment lasts about 2 months longer than the state programs cover. The cut of this program is projected to hurt the economy because of the decrease in spending that will occur. President Obama said, "When Congress comes back to work, their first order of business should be making this right." Reenacting this program will increase the national debt, but will help the unemployed and the economy.
Comments:
This example of social welfare shows the complexity of social welfare issues. Social welfare is all about who deserves benefits and who does not. I am sure that there are Americans who have taken advantage of this federal unemployment aid program. I also am sure that there are many who have greatly needed it and have benefited greatly from it. In my opinion, this program is legitimate and is needed. While there are some who take advantage of it, many more use it in the right way to get back on their feet. In the article, it quotes Maurice Emsellem as saying that the program, "is really a lifeline to help pay the bills, put food on the table, and put gas in the tank so people can look for work." It would be hard to look for a job if you had to worry about what you were going to eat that night.
This issue also highlights the view of most Americans on political policy. No one likes adding to the national debt, but everyone wants more spending on programs that will benefit them and that they deem legitimate and necessary. There really is not a country wide solution to this desire. This specific program is an example of client politics.
Unit 5
12/28/13
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593112/Thousands-of-Utahns-to-lose-jobless-benefits-next-week.html?pg=all
Synopsis:
With the recent budget plan that Congress passed, federal long term unemployment aid will be cut. This federal aid program was set up by President Bush, and it helps those who are unemployed longer than the individual state programs cover. It is an extension of the state unemployment aid programs, which usually last for about 6 months. About 3000 Utahns and 1.3 million Americans will be directly affected by this cut. The average American unemployment lasts about 2 months longer than the state programs cover. The cut of this program is projected to hurt the economy because of the decrease in spending that will occur. President Obama said, "When Congress comes back to work, their first order of business should be making this right." Reenacting this program will increase the national debt, but will help the unemployed and the economy.
Comments:
This example of social welfare shows the complexity of social welfare issues. Social welfare is all about who deserves benefits and who does not. I am sure that there are Americans who have taken advantage of this federal unemployment aid program. I also am sure that there are many who have greatly needed it and have benefited greatly from it. In my opinion, this program is legitimate and is needed. While there are some who take advantage of it, many more use it in the right way to get back on their feet. In the article, it quotes Maurice Emsellem as saying that the program, "is really a lifeline to help pay the bills, put food on the table, and put gas in the tank so people can look for work." It would be hard to look for a job if you had to worry about what you were going to eat that night.
This issue also highlights the view of most Americans on political policy. No one likes adding to the national debt, but everyone wants more spending on programs that will benefit them and that they deem legitimate and necessary. There really is not a country wide solution to this desire. This specific program is an example of client politics.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Major legislation stalls as a divided Congress enacts few laws.
Jason Cannon
Unit 5
11/30/13
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/30/unproductive-congress-record-low/3691993/
Synopsis:
2013 is on track to be the lowest law-passing year for Congress in the last 66 years (since they started recording). By the first part of November, 52 laws had passed. The previous lowest was in 1995 in which 88 laws passed. Some of the bills that have not passed have been the immigration reform bill (which is waiting in the House), farm and defense bills, and an annual spending budget bill. The House and Senate both passed budget bills for themselves, but together they did not pass an annual spending bill. The article also said that the House and Senate could not successfully change the sequester (automatic, sweeping budget cuts) now present.
Detailed Analysis/Comments:
The article quoted a think tank member, Matt Bennett, as saying, "We do not see any evidence that there is a real possibility for breakthrough next year." I don't see why there would be a breakthrough next year, with Congress being the same. An obvious reason for the inefficiency of this Congress is the fact that a different party occupies each house. But why would this Congress pass much fewer laws than other divided Congresses? A contributing factor could be the fact that the political parties have become more and more ideological and have increasingly been influenced by the extremists of the party.
Clarine Riddle said, "Some will say that this is the new normal, that the era of big reforms brought together through bipartisan compromises is over. We're certainly hopeful. We want to be part of turning it around." How will they turn this around? Something definitely needs to change either within political parties or within Congress itself. I like the idea of parties working together to pass laws that will benefit the entire country. Right now it seems like everyone is doing what they can to keep themselves safe. I don't think it is bad that Congress cannot easily pass laws, but I think that it should be able to compromise and get more done. The majority of each party (more moderate than the extremists) needs to speak up and get things done.
Unit 5
11/30/13
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/30/unproductive-congress-record-low/3691993/
Synopsis:
2013 is on track to be the lowest law-passing year for Congress in the last 66 years (since they started recording). By the first part of November, 52 laws had passed. The previous lowest was in 1995 in which 88 laws passed. Some of the bills that have not passed have been the immigration reform bill (which is waiting in the House), farm and defense bills, and an annual spending budget bill. The House and Senate both passed budget bills for themselves, but together they did not pass an annual spending bill. The article also said that the House and Senate could not successfully change the sequester (automatic, sweeping budget cuts) now present.
Detailed Analysis/Comments:
The article quoted a think tank member, Matt Bennett, as saying, "We do not see any evidence that there is a real possibility for breakthrough next year." I don't see why there would be a breakthrough next year, with Congress being the same. An obvious reason for the inefficiency of this Congress is the fact that a different party occupies each house. But why would this Congress pass much fewer laws than other divided Congresses? A contributing factor could be the fact that the political parties have become more and more ideological and have increasingly been influenced by the extremists of the party.
Clarine Riddle said, "Some will say that this is the new normal, that the era of big reforms brought together through bipartisan compromises is over. We're certainly hopeful. We want to be part of turning it around." How will they turn this around? Something definitely needs to change either within political parties or within Congress itself. I like the idea of parties working together to pass laws that will benefit the entire country. Right now it seems like everyone is doing what they can to keep themselves safe. I don't think it is bad that Congress cannot easily pass laws, but I think that it should be able to compromise and get more done. The majority of each party (more moderate than the extremists) needs to speak up and get things done.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Obama visits protesters fasting in support of immigration reform
Jason Cannon
Unit 5
11/29/13
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/29/obama-visits-protesters-fasting-in-support-of-immigration-reform/
Synopsis:
President Obama visited a group that was fasting for immigration reform. This group has only been drinking water to try to get congress to pass immigration reforms. A few months ago, the Senate passed a reform bill that would make it possible for current undocumented immigrants to become citizens as well as strengthen the border security. Obama has since strongly supported immigration reform. He said in a California speech, "I want them to know we hear you. We're with you. The whole country hears you." The House Speaker will probably bring up the reform bill in separate parts.
Detailed Analysis/Comments:
This situation shows the power of interest groups in our government. The fact that Obama went and visited this group shows that they are powerful. Although these groups may not seem to have a great influence on the government, they do influence it. Sometimes they influence the government indirectly by drawing national attention to an issue. The more that media covers this fasting group, the more the people will become involved. When the country is involved, the government has a hard time avoiding the issue. I think that although this interest group seems insignificant, they could have an influence on the House of Representatives.
In the article, it mentions that there are members of the House of Representatives that will not vote for this bill. I think it will be hard for the bill to pass the House because of the way party ideology stands in the way on this issue. The power of the party is prevalent in Congress and influences the members greatly, especially in the House where the terms are much shorter.
It was interesting that John Boehner, the House Speaker, mentioned bringing up parts of the bill separately. This shows the power of the Speaker of the House in determining the business of the House as well as how that business is presented. I think that this will have a negative effect on the reform. If he splits the bill into the border element and the current illegal immigrant element, I think the House will vote to strengthen the borders but will deny the part about allowing undocumented immigrants to gain citizenship. I think that the Senate bill seems reasonable.
Unit 5
11/29/13
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/29/obama-visits-protesters-fasting-in-support-of-immigration-reform/
Synopsis:
President Obama visited a group that was fasting for immigration reform. This group has only been drinking water to try to get congress to pass immigration reforms. A few months ago, the Senate passed a reform bill that would make it possible for current undocumented immigrants to become citizens as well as strengthen the border security. Obama has since strongly supported immigration reform. He said in a California speech, "I want them to know we hear you. We're with you. The whole country hears you." The House Speaker will probably bring up the reform bill in separate parts.
Detailed Analysis/Comments:
This situation shows the power of interest groups in our government. The fact that Obama went and visited this group shows that they are powerful. Although these groups may not seem to have a great influence on the government, they do influence it. Sometimes they influence the government indirectly by drawing national attention to an issue. The more that media covers this fasting group, the more the people will become involved. When the country is involved, the government has a hard time avoiding the issue. I think that although this interest group seems insignificant, they could have an influence on the House of Representatives.
In the article, it mentions that there are members of the House of Representatives that will not vote for this bill. I think it will be hard for the bill to pass the House because of the way party ideology stands in the way on this issue. The power of the party is prevalent in Congress and influences the members greatly, especially in the House where the terms are much shorter.
It was interesting that John Boehner, the House Speaker, mentioned bringing up parts of the bill separately. This shows the power of the Speaker of the House in determining the business of the House as well as how that business is presented. I think that this will have a negative effect on the reform. If he splits the bill into the border element and the current illegal immigrant element, I think the House will vote to strengthen the borders but will deny the part about allowing undocumented immigrants to gain citizenship. I think that the Senate bill seems reasonable.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
House Democrats help pass Republican-led healthcare bill
Jason Cannon
Unit 4 (Congress, Bill-Law)
11/15/13
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24966051
Synopsis:
A bill was passed in the House today that would give insurance companies the ability to sell insurance plans that do not comply with the Obamacare standards. The White House was very against this bill and said they would reject it if it passed the Senate. It is not likely that it will pass Senate. 39 Democrats in the House voted for this bill. The article mentioned that this may be due to the fact that elections are coming up and they don't want to look bad because of Obamacare. This article also talked about the struggling healthcare website and the concerns it is bringing. Obama said on Thursday that those with current plans that did not meet Obamacare standards could have one year before they had to comply. He is currently meeting with several healthcare business leaders to find the best way to get Americans into healthcare plans.
Comments:
I think that this whole situation shows that Obamacare was not at all ready to be rolled out on October 1st. The fact that they still don't have the website working is a big indicator that they should have at least waited a few months. Also, the fact that Obama is scrambling around and talking to healthcare industry leaders now about how to best get people signed up for plans shows that Obamacare was not ready.
The 39 House Democrats who voted for this bill showed their unease with the system. It would have been interesting to see if those same members of congress would have voted the same way had they been in the Senate. Because the House terms are only two years, the representatives have to be much more reactive to the people in order to have chance for reelection. I think the vote of these 39 representatives demonstrates the uncertain views of many Americans when it comes to Obamacare.
I also find fault with Obamacare in that several people have been told that they need to upgrade plans despite Obama's initial statement that no one who had healthcare would have to change. You would think that Obama would know about his own healthcare plan enough not to say something like that. It is obvious that many people are not okay with having to switch plans as demonstrated by Obama's statement on Thursday that people could hold onto their old plan for a year. It seems that he is not very secure and confident in what he is doing in terms of Obamacare.
The bill proposed by the House will almost certainly not become a law because it must pass the Senate (democratically controlled) and the President (who probably would not destroy his own system even though he seems very unsure about it). This is just another example of the checks and balances system at work in the United States and highlights what it takes for a bill to become a law.
Unit 4 (Congress, Bill-Law)
11/15/13
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24966051
Synopsis:
A bill was passed in the House today that would give insurance companies the ability to sell insurance plans that do not comply with the Obamacare standards. The White House was very against this bill and said they would reject it if it passed the Senate. It is not likely that it will pass Senate. 39 Democrats in the House voted for this bill. The article mentioned that this may be due to the fact that elections are coming up and they don't want to look bad because of Obamacare. This article also talked about the struggling healthcare website and the concerns it is bringing. Obama said on Thursday that those with current plans that did not meet Obamacare standards could have one year before they had to comply. He is currently meeting with several healthcare business leaders to find the best way to get Americans into healthcare plans.
Comments:
I think that this whole situation shows that Obamacare was not at all ready to be rolled out on October 1st. The fact that they still don't have the website working is a big indicator that they should have at least waited a few months. Also, the fact that Obama is scrambling around and talking to healthcare industry leaders now about how to best get people signed up for plans shows that Obamacare was not ready.
The 39 House Democrats who voted for this bill showed their unease with the system. It would have been interesting to see if those same members of congress would have voted the same way had they been in the Senate. Because the House terms are only two years, the representatives have to be much more reactive to the people in order to have chance for reelection. I think the vote of these 39 representatives demonstrates the uncertain views of many Americans when it comes to Obamacare.
I also find fault with Obamacare in that several people have been told that they need to upgrade plans despite Obama's initial statement that no one who had healthcare would have to change. You would think that Obama would know about his own healthcare plan enough not to say something like that. It is obvious that many people are not okay with having to switch plans as demonstrated by Obama's statement on Thursday that people could hold onto their old plan for a year. It seems that he is not very secure and confident in what he is doing in terms of Obamacare.
The bill proposed by the House will almost certainly not become a law because it must pass the Senate (democratically controlled) and the President (who probably would not destroy his own system even though he seems very unsure about it). This is just another example of the checks and balances system at work in the United States and highlights what it takes for a bill to become a law.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Fool's errand or heroic stand?
Jason Cannon
Unit 1-2
10/17/13
Synopsis:
This article addressed whether Republican Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz were heroes or idiots during the recent budget issues. They both wanted to defund Obamacare and they promoted the House's rejection of the budget bill containing Obamacare. Many fellow Senate Republicans did not agree with the actions and positions of Lee & Cruz as well as the House Republicans. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said, "The way we're behaving and the path we've taken in the last couple of weeks leads to a marginalized party in the eyes of the American people." Senator John McCain called the Republican stand up "a fool's errand." Despite these contrary views from members of the Republican party, some think that the position and actions of Lee and Cruz are great and that they are heroes for trying to get rid of Obamacare. The article closed by saying that the government shutdown shifted the focus away from the problems of Obamacare.
Detailed Analysis / comments:
In the article it said that Cruz was a possible presidential candidate for 2016. Evaluating Cruz's actions based on this piece of information causes me to wonder if Cruz acted the way he did to set himself up for a presidential campaign. He might have been trying to get his name and his ideology out there. He should not have acted the way he did just to help himself in a possible presidential campaign (even though I don't think his actions helped his national reputation and potential campaign). I think that it is okay for Republicans to not vote for a budget that they feel is wrong, but that it is not okay to just vote against it for personal status. I don't know what the intentions of Lee or Cruz were and so I don't want to call them idiots or heroes. In my opinion, though, the negative reaction of other Republican Senators is justified. I also think that the positive reaction of some Republicans to Lee and Cruz's actions is also okay. The big issue for me is the intentions of Lee and Cruz. No matter what you think, it probably is true that the Republican party became more divided as a result of the shutdown and actions of Republicans like Lee and Cruz.
Unit 1-2
10/17/13
Synopsis:
This article addressed whether Republican Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz were heroes or idiots during the recent budget issues. They both wanted to defund Obamacare and they promoted the House's rejection of the budget bill containing Obamacare. Many fellow Senate Republicans did not agree with the actions and positions of Lee & Cruz as well as the House Republicans. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said, "The way we're behaving and the path we've taken in the last couple of weeks leads to a marginalized party in the eyes of the American people." Senator John McCain called the Republican stand up "a fool's errand." Despite these contrary views from members of the Republican party, some think that the position and actions of Lee and Cruz are great and that they are heroes for trying to get rid of Obamacare. The article closed by saying that the government shutdown shifted the focus away from the problems of Obamacare.
Detailed Analysis / comments:
In the article it said that Cruz was a possible presidential candidate for 2016. Evaluating Cruz's actions based on this piece of information causes me to wonder if Cruz acted the way he did to set himself up for a presidential campaign. He might have been trying to get his name and his ideology out there. He should not have acted the way he did just to help himself in a possible presidential campaign (even though I don't think his actions helped his national reputation and potential campaign). I think that it is okay for Republicans to not vote for a budget that they feel is wrong, but that it is not okay to just vote against it for personal status. I don't know what the intentions of Lee or Cruz were and so I don't want to call them idiots or heroes. In my opinion, though, the negative reaction of other Republican Senators is justified. I also think that the positive reaction of some Republicans to Lee and Cruz's actions is also okay. The big issue for me is the intentions of Lee and Cruz. No matter what you think, it probably is true that the Republican party became more divided as a result of the shutdown and actions of Republicans like Lee and Cruz.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
'Governance Problem' beatable
Jason Cannon
Unit 1-2
October 12, 2013
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588257/US-will-weather-governance-problem-better-than-any-other-nation-former-Secretary-of-State-says.html?pg=1
Synopsis:
This article covered the speech Condoleezza Rice (a previous Secretary of State) gave in the 27th Annual Utah Women's Conference put on by Senator Hatch and his wife. In her speech, Rice talked about the United States system of government and how it would be able to handle the government problems it was now facing better than other nations. She said that the founding fathers set up "near perfect institutions" and that the federal system set up should help the country in solving the government problems. She covered several topics relating to the system and opportunities in the United States. It was a hopeful speech amid the discouraging situation the US is going through.
Comments / Detailed Analysis:
I think that Rice's comments were perfect for the situation we are in. Instead of bashing on the government and condemning the United States, she expressed confidence in our government and talked about all of the good things in the United States. When talking about the federal system of government and that the states and local governments should help, Rice said, "The states have become labs and incubators of reform and innovation in almost every aspect of life — education, health care or transportation. That's a good thing." The national gov can look at what the states are doing and can learn from their successful and unsuccessful systems.
Rice also talked about the ability of individuals in the United States to improve their conditions and rise up because of education. She said, "The crisis in K-12 education may be our single greatest national security threat." I think that this is a true statement as well and that much of the success of the United States rests upon the education of the people.
I was relieved to find a current event not talking about the consequences and details of the shutdown.
Unit 1-2
October 12, 2013
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588257/US-will-weather-governance-problem-better-than-any-other-nation-former-Secretary-of-State-says.html?pg=1
Synopsis:
This article covered the speech Condoleezza Rice (a previous Secretary of State) gave in the 27th Annual Utah Women's Conference put on by Senator Hatch and his wife. In her speech, Rice talked about the United States system of government and how it would be able to handle the government problems it was now facing better than other nations. She said that the founding fathers set up "near perfect institutions" and that the federal system set up should help the country in solving the government problems. She covered several topics relating to the system and opportunities in the United States. It was a hopeful speech amid the discouraging situation the US is going through.
Comments / Detailed Analysis:
I think that Rice's comments were perfect for the situation we are in. Instead of bashing on the government and condemning the United States, she expressed confidence in our government and talked about all of the good things in the United States. When talking about the federal system of government and that the states and local governments should help, Rice said, "The states have become labs and incubators of reform and innovation in almost every aspect of life — education, health care or transportation. That's a good thing." The national gov can look at what the states are doing and can learn from their successful and unsuccessful systems.
Rice also talked about the ability of individuals in the United States to improve their conditions and rise up because of education. She said, "The crisis in K-12 education may be our single greatest national security threat." I think that this is a true statement as well and that much of the success of the United States rests upon the education of the people.
I was relieved to find a current event not talking about the consequences and details of the shutdown.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Breakthrough: National parks could be reopened soon
Jason Cannon
October 10, 2013
Unit 1-2
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588123/Breakthrough-National-parks-could-be-reopened-soon-if-Utah-uses-own-money.html
Synopsis:
Utah Governor Herbert is trying to get the Utah national parks open using state money and resources. The Obama Administration said that some national parks could be opened by states as long as the states used their own money to do so. Herbert says he is, " . . . very concerned about those in rural Utah that are impacted in such a negative way because of the closure of these parks." He is trying to work out the details with federal government officials, including making sure that Utah will be paid back for the money they put into the national parks.
Comments:
I think that the effort being made by Government Herbert to reopen the national parks is a valiant one. I can see why local economies are being greatly hurt by shutdown. Many of them rely on the business the national parks attract, and without it they lose money fast. In the article it mentioned that the shutdown of Zions National Park cost surrounding communities 3.5 million dollars. I don't understand many of the economic consequences of the national parks being shut down, but I know it greatly influences several Utah communities.
As long as the state will get paid back by the federal government after they work the budget out, I think that Utah should put money towards opening the national parks. We should be careful that we don't overdue it and put ourselves at financial risk, but I think the fact that Governor Herbert said, "We'll see what we can afford and what we can do," shows that we will be responsible with the money we put forward.
October 10, 2013
Unit 1-2
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588123/Breakthrough-National-parks-could-be-reopened-soon-if-Utah-uses-own-money.html
Synopsis:
Utah Governor Herbert is trying to get the Utah national parks open using state money and resources. The Obama Administration said that some national parks could be opened by states as long as the states used their own money to do so. Herbert says he is, " . . . very concerned about those in rural Utah that are impacted in such a negative way because of the closure of these parks." He is trying to work out the details with federal government officials, including making sure that Utah will be paid back for the money they put into the national parks.
Comments:
I think that the effort being made by Government Herbert to reopen the national parks is a valiant one. I can see why local economies are being greatly hurt by shutdown. Many of them rely on the business the national parks attract, and without it they lose money fast. In the article it mentioned that the shutdown of Zions National Park cost surrounding communities 3.5 million dollars. I don't understand many of the economic consequences of the national parks being shut down, but I know it greatly influences several Utah communities.
As long as the state will get paid back by the federal government after they work the budget out, I think that Utah should put money towards opening the national parks. We should be careful that we don't overdue it and put ourselves at financial risk, but I think the fact that Governor Herbert said, "We'll see what we can afford and what we can do," shows that we will be responsible with the money we put forward.
Friday, October 4, 2013
U.S. businesses worry about a prolonged shutdown
Jason Cannon
Unit 2
Synopsis
In the Deseret News article US Businesses worry about a prolonged shutdown , the government shutdown is discussed as well as its economic effects. The article does not go into very much detail about the economic effects, but it talks about the possible and current effects of the shutdown on businesses and individuals. It gives several examples of businesses who are directly affected by the shutdown and talks about those who are indirectly affected by the shutdown. It talks about the importance of the length of the shutdown and how that impacts the effects of the shutdown.
Detailed Analysis / Comments
The article stated that for every week the government is shut down, the economy loses .15% of its "annualized growth." It also mentioned that 800,000 federal workers stopped getting paid, and that this had an effect on how they spent their money. It claimed that they would cut back on things like eating out and hotels, which would effect these industries. Near the end of the article, it said that the federal workers were not the only Americans who would potentially be more stringent with their money. Ordinary citizens might lose their trust in the economy if the government remains shut down, causing them to not spend as much. This in turn would hurt the businesses. The article also mentioned that aspects of the economy directly tied the federal gov (such as the housing industry and defense contracting) are also being greatly impacted by the government shutdown.
I don't know much about the effects of the government shutdown on the economy, but I understand that the effects are not good and that they get much worse with time. Really big problems could emerge if Congress does not get this worked out soon. The article mentioned that some think that people are making a bigger deal out of this shutdown than it is. They don't think that the economic problems will deeply effect all of America. I think that this might be the case right now, but if this shutdown goes on for a long time, all of America could be deeply affected economically. The Republicans in the House could try to tweak the Obamacare funding, but I don't think they will get their way of defunding it. Soon they just need to back down. It would be interesting to see how many Republican citizens agree with what the Republican House is doing.
Unit 2
Synopsis
In the Deseret News article US Businesses worry about a prolonged shutdown , the government shutdown is discussed as well as its economic effects. The article does not go into very much detail about the economic effects, but it talks about the possible and current effects of the shutdown on businesses and individuals. It gives several examples of businesses who are directly affected by the shutdown and talks about those who are indirectly affected by the shutdown. It talks about the importance of the length of the shutdown and how that impacts the effects of the shutdown.
Detailed Analysis / Comments
The article stated that for every week the government is shut down, the economy loses .15% of its "annualized growth." It also mentioned that 800,000 federal workers stopped getting paid, and that this had an effect on how they spent their money. It claimed that they would cut back on things like eating out and hotels, which would effect these industries. Near the end of the article, it said that the federal workers were not the only Americans who would potentially be more stringent with their money. Ordinary citizens might lose their trust in the economy if the government remains shut down, causing them to not spend as much. This in turn would hurt the businesses. The article also mentioned that aspects of the economy directly tied the federal gov (such as the housing industry and defense contracting) are also being greatly impacted by the government shutdown.
I don't know much about the effects of the government shutdown on the economy, but I understand that the effects are not good and that they get much worse with time. Really big problems could emerge if Congress does not get this worked out soon. The article mentioned that some think that people are making a bigger deal out of this shutdown than it is. They don't think that the economic problems will deeply effect all of America. I think that this might be the case right now, but if this shutdown goes on for a long time, all of America could be deeply affected economically. The Republicans in the House could try to tweak the Obamacare funding, but I don't think they will get their way of defunding it. Soon they just need to back down. It would be interesting to see how many Republican citizens agree with what the Republican House is doing.
Friday, September 20, 2013
US House passes budget bill that would defund healthcare law
Jason Cannon
Unit 1-3
I read one article on this from the BBC and one from the Herald Sun. The Herald Sun had more info and also seemed more biased. Their information was mostly the same.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24178690
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/us-republicans-vote-to-defund-obamacare-risking-government-shutdown/story-fni0d2cj-1226724237350
Synopsis:
On October 1, the government will shut down unless temporary budget plans are set up. The House of Representatives (largely Republican) passed a bill that would allow the government to avoid shutdown as well as stopping the Obamacare funding. The Senate said that they would reject this bill, and the President said that he would veto it if it made it to him. The articles also talk about the debt ceiling needing to be raised soon, but I will focus on the House's bill.
Detailed Analysis:
Harry Reid said that the "Republicans are simply postponing for a few days the inevitable choice they must face: Pass a clean bill to fund the government, or force a shutdown." The Republican Speaker of the House said, "The American people don't want the government shut down, and they don't want Obamacare." The article on the Herald Sun said that the Tea Party was the major cause behind the part in the bill about defunding Obamacare.
This current event is a great example of checks and balances. Even though the House of Representatives passed a bill, that bill will not go into effect unless it passes both the Senate and the President. In this situation, the bill will not even make it through the Senate. This system causes government stalemates to occur often. If the House of Representatives will not allow a new budget bill that still funds Obamacare to pass, then the government could be in shutdown for a while. I think that the House is fine to want to get rid of Obamacare, but compromise needs to be reached in order for the government to keep functioning. It may not be too smart for the House to be super stubborn on the needed budget bill.
The two party political system is also demonstrated in this current event. The Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate disagree and cause issues like this to arise. These disagreements are good for our nation and keep each party in check. I think that the Republicans should be able to disagree with the Democrats on the issue of Obamacare and that they can attempt to pass bills to stop it. But there comes a point in which compromise has to be reached in order to keep the government running (literally). It seems to me that the Republicans in the House are trying to fight a losing battle by trying to get rid of it on this bill. I still think they should still fight it, but not in this particular way.
If it is true that the Tea Party was the cause of the part of the bill defunding Obamacare, then this current event also shows how powerful aggressive factions are in political parties. Just like we talked about today in class, factions have the power to greatly influence a party to do what it was not planning to do (as the Herald Sun says the Tea Party did).
Unit 1-3
I read one article on this from the BBC and one from the Herald Sun. The Herald Sun had more info and also seemed more biased. Their information was mostly the same.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24178690
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/us-republicans-vote-to-defund-obamacare-risking-government-shutdown/story-fni0d2cj-1226724237350
Synopsis:
On October 1, the government will shut down unless temporary budget plans are set up. The House of Representatives (largely Republican) passed a bill that would allow the government to avoid shutdown as well as stopping the Obamacare funding. The Senate said that they would reject this bill, and the President said that he would veto it if it made it to him. The articles also talk about the debt ceiling needing to be raised soon, but I will focus on the House's bill.
Detailed Analysis:
Harry Reid said that the "Republicans are simply postponing for a few days the inevitable choice they must face: Pass a clean bill to fund the government, or force a shutdown." The Republican Speaker of the House said, "The American people don't want the government shut down, and they don't want Obamacare." The article on the Herald Sun said that the Tea Party was the major cause behind the part in the bill about defunding Obamacare.
This current event is a great example of checks and balances. Even though the House of Representatives passed a bill, that bill will not go into effect unless it passes both the Senate and the President. In this situation, the bill will not even make it through the Senate. This system causes government stalemates to occur often. If the House of Representatives will not allow a new budget bill that still funds Obamacare to pass, then the government could be in shutdown for a while. I think that the House is fine to want to get rid of Obamacare, but compromise needs to be reached in order for the government to keep functioning. It may not be too smart for the House to be super stubborn on the needed budget bill.
The two party political system is also demonstrated in this current event. The Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate disagree and cause issues like this to arise. These disagreements are good for our nation and keep each party in check. I think that the Republicans should be able to disagree with the Democrats on the issue of Obamacare and that they can attempt to pass bills to stop it. But there comes a point in which compromise has to be reached in order to keep the government running (literally). It seems to me that the Republicans in the House are trying to fight a losing battle by trying to get rid of it on this bill. I still think they should still fight it, but not in this particular way.
If it is true that the Tea Party was the cause of the part of the bill defunding Obamacare, then this current event also shows how powerful aggressive factions are in political parties. Just like we talked about today in class, factions have the power to greatly influence a party to do what it was not planning to do (as the Herald Sun says the Tea Party did).
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Doubts raised about independence of White House panel on NSA privacy
September 14, 2013
Jason Cannon
Unit: Federalism (expanding power of federal gov, constitution)
Synopsis:
A committee was formed by President Obama to look into the NSA and determine if its acts are constitutional and if it is helping the gov and not hurting the people. This committee has received lots of criticism because of the members assigned to it and because of its inability to potentially do anything. President Obama apparently said that the committee would be made up of outside sources, but four of the five members of the committee have worked in the government and/or intelligence related jobs.
Detailed analysis/comments:
As I read the fact that this committee was going to try to determine the constitutionality of the NSA's acts, I wondered how they, or anyone could do that. Many issues today could never have been projected 200 + years ago when the constitution was written, and so luckily the constitution was left somewhat open in terms of the national governments power by the "necessary and proper" clause. But this also results in much controversy regarding what is "necessary" for congress to carry out its powers and what is "proper" in carrying out those powers. I think that this uncertainty favors the national government because they can claim that anything they are doing is "necessary and proper." By saying this I do not mean that the national government should not have powers that are not specifically stated in the constitution. I recognize that things have changed drastically and the national gov needs to do several things through the "necessary and proper" clause. But I do think that the constitutionality of something is very difficult to determine based on how much things have changed and the many different interpretations of the constitution. How far should the government be able to go to protect the country? Are they violating individual rights by invading their cell phone/internet privacy? These questions are very difficult to answer with the constitution.
The white house released a written statement on this committee which said, "The review group will assess whether, in light of advancements in communications technologies, the United States employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust." The words "other policy considerations" make it seem that it is not a matter of constitutionality, but a much lighter matter. When talking about the committee, Steven Aftergood said, "Basically, they're saying, 'Well how can we optimize surveillance while taking privacy in to account?'". The written statement by this White House makes me want to agree with this guy.
In the article it talked about many people being critical of the President's appointed committee, especially because he said that they would be outside sources. Many think that they will find nothing wrong with the actions of the NSA. I agree with their criticism and think that they make a great point. Those who have done work associated with the government's intelligence agencies are probably not those who would find something wrong with the NSA. It might make them look bad. The article pointed out, though, that the committee could surprise everyone and prove the criticism wrong. It also said that even if the committee does find something wrong with the NSA actions it would not be able to do anything. I think that the committee itself couldn't do anything, but by stating what they thought they could influence the president's decisions and the decision's of congress.
I don't have a solution to figuring out if what the NSA is doing is constitutional (and I don't know if there is a great solution), but I don't think that the answer lies in this specific five person committee.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/07/201463/doubts-raised-about-independence.html#.UjUvD39qmRN
Jason Cannon
Unit: Federalism (expanding power of federal gov, constitution)
Synopsis:
A committee was formed by President Obama to look into the NSA and determine if its acts are constitutional and if it is helping the gov and not hurting the people. This committee has received lots of criticism because of the members assigned to it and because of its inability to potentially do anything. President Obama apparently said that the committee would be made up of outside sources, but four of the five members of the committee have worked in the government and/or intelligence related jobs.
Detailed analysis/comments:
As I read the fact that this committee was going to try to determine the constitutionality of the NSA's acts, I wondered how they, or anyone could do that. Many issues today could never have been projected 200 + years ago when the constitution was written, and so luckily the constitution was left somewhat open in terms of the national governments power by the "necessary and proper" clause. But this also results in much controversy regarding what is "necessary" for congress to carry out its powers and what is "proper" in carrying out those powers. I think that this uncertainty favors the national government because they can claim that anything they are doing is "necessary and proper." By saying this I do not mean that the national government should not have powers that are not specifically stated in the constitution. I recognize that things have changed drastically and the national gov needs to do several things through the "necessary and proper" clause. But I do think that the constitutionality of something is very difficult to determine based on how much things have changed and the many different interpretations of the constitution. How far should the government be able to go to protect the country? Are they violating individual rights by invading their cell phone/internet privacy? These questions are very difficult to answer with the constitution.
The white house released a written statement on this committee which said, "The review group will assess whether, in light of advancements in communications technologies, the United States employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust." The words "other policy considerations" make it seem that it is not a matter of constitutionality, but a much lighter matter. When talking about the committee, Steven Aftergood said, "Basically, they're saying, 'Well how can we optimize surveillance while taking privacy in to account?'". The written statement by this White House makes me want to agree with this guy.
In the article it talked about many people being critical of the President's appointed committee, especially because he said that they would be outside sources. Many think that they will find nothing wrong with the actions of the NSA. I agree with their criticism and think that they make a great point. Those who have done work associated with the government's intelligence agencies are probably not those who would find something wrong with the NSA. It might make them look bad. The article pointed out, though, that the committee could surprise everyone and prove the criticism wrong. It also said that even if the committee does find something wrong with the NSA actions it would not be able to do anything. I think that the committee itself couldn't do anything, but by stating what they thought they could influence the president's decisions and the decision's of congress.
I don't have a solution to figuring out if what the NSA is doing is constitutional (and I don't know if there is a great solution), but I don't think that the answer lies in this specific five person committee.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/07/201463/doubts-raised-about-independence.html#.UjUvD39qmRN
Friday, August 30, 2013
GOP Lawmakers Demand Information From Groups Getting Navigator Grants
August 30, 2013
Unit: Study of American Gov & Constitution
Jason Cannon
Synopsis:
The House Energy and Commerce committee had 15 Republican members that sent a letter to those who got federal Navigator grants. These Navigator grants were given to help notify and inform those without insurance about the new Health Insurance Marketplace online (available for use on Oct 2). They were also intended to be used to help people understand some of the different options there were for healthcare. The purpose of the letter that was sent by the 15 committee members was to get feedback on what the groups were going to do with the money. There were many critics of this letter, saying that it was "intimidating", "shameful", and "an abuse of . . . authority".
Detailed analysis:
Specifically the letter stated that the recipients needed to schedule a meeting and write down information about the work they were going to do and about the workers/volunteers. One critic said the letter was "an obvious attempt at intimidation of navigator programs, most of which are nonprofits that don't have the resources to hire lawyers to fight this, nor the time to respond at this very busy time. ... This attempt to bully these programs is shameful." I agree that these requests might be tough on these organizations and might be done in an attempt to slow them down and hurt healthcare, but I think they are also very important. After giving these organizations thousands or even millions of dollars, the government should be able to know what they plan to do with that money. This will help prevent worthless spending and will keep these organizations in check. I think that this is a good example of the checks a balances system. Certain government leaders get the funding to the organizations and others check it. Whether this is by selfish reasons or not, it helps balance the powers.
Because of the intimidating/hindering effects of the letter as well as beneficial effects, I think that a happy medium could be reached. This could be done by making the requirements less intense or by lengthening the time period set forth (I am not exactly sure what it is). I think it would be good to get a basic report on each groups game plan of how to use the money and then follow up with them to see how it is going
Henry Waxman, a Democrat on the Energy and Commerce committee, said that their letter was "an abuse of your oversight authority to launch groundless investigations into civic organizations that are trying to make health reform a success." First of all I don't think that their investigations are groundless. Their investigations are valuable. He acknowledges that they have authority, but are abusing it. Although their intentions may not all be completely pure, I don't think they are completely abusing their authority (their right to exercise power).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/08/gop-lawmakers-demand-information-from-groups-getting-navigator-grants.html
Unit: Study of American Gov & Constitution
Jason Cannon
Synopsis:
The House Energy and Commerce committee had 15 Republican members that sent a letter to those who got federal Navigator grants. These Navigator grants were given to help notify and inform those without insurance about the new Health Insurance Marketplace online (available for use on Oct 2). They were also intended to be used to help people understand some of the different options there were for healthcare. The purpose of the letter that was sent by the 15 committee members was to get feedback on what the groups were going to do with the money. There were many critics of this letter, saying that it was "intimidating", "shameful", and "an abuse of . . . authority".
Detailed analysis:
Specifically the letter stated that the recipients needed to schedule a meeting and write down information about the work they were going to do and about the workers/volunteers. One critic said the letter was "an obvious attempt at intimidation of navigator programs, most of which are nonprofits that don't have the resources to hire lawyers to fight this, nor the time to respond at this very busy time. ... This attempt to bully these programs is shameful." I agree that these requests might be tough on these organizations and might be done in an attempt to slow them down and hurt healthcare, but I think they are also very important. After giving these organizations thousands or even millions of dollars, the government should be able to know what they plan to do with that money. This will help prevent worthless spending and will keep these organizations in check. I think that this is a good example of the checks a balances system. Certain government leaders get the funding to the organizations and others check it. Whether this is by selfish reasons or not, it helps balance the powers.
Because of the intimidating/hindering effects of the letter as well as beneficial effects, I think that a happy medium could be reached. This could be done by making the requirements less intense or by lengthening the time period set forth (I am not exactly sure what it is). I think it would be good to get a basic report on each groups game plan of how to use the money and then follow up with them to see how it is going
Henry Waxman, a Democrat on the Energy and Commerce committee, said that their letter was "an abuse of your oversight authority to launch groundless investigations into civic organizations that are trying to make health reform a success." First of all I don't think that their investigations are groundless. Their investigations are valuable. He acknowledges that they have authority, but are abusing it. Although their intentions may not all be completely pure, I don't think they are completely abusing their authority (their right to exercise power).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/08/gop-lawmakers-demand-information-from-groups-getting-navigator-grants.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)