Political Issues

ISIS is Making the Biggest Threat to Oil Prices Even Worse

Summary:

Last June, ISIS took control of the city Baiji which is home to the Baiji oil refinery that once supplied around a third of Iraq's domestic fuel supply.  Recently, ISIS set fire to that refinery.

With the insecure alliance between the Middle East's major Arab powers and limited U.S. assistance, ISIS has proven its power, and its ability to take over.  The Middle East controls about sixty percent of the world's proven oil reserves, and if ISIS takes over the major oil field in Iraq, there could be some devastating consequences.  Iraq is the second largest producer in the cartel, and if ISIL presses further into Iraq the price of a barrel of oil could go up to over $100. 

After years of high oil prices, OPEC tried lowering prices and succeeded with prices per barrel being $50.  US rig numbers decreased drastically causing the loss of jobs and a putting a hurting on the companies.  Prices per barrel have been back up to about $65 since the beginning of the year, but by October prices are predicted to go back down with the increase in US shale drilling.  So far traders have ignored the threat ISIS puts on the oil market and the global economy.  

Analysis:  

If ISIS gets a hold of the Iraqi oil fields oil prices could skyrocket and the global economy could be drastically affected.  Even though the US is very reluctant to get involved and send troops over, if we care enough I think we just need to stop procrastinating and take ISIS down.  I know that's easier said than done, but if we don't want to get involved then we need to stop worrying about it or we should just get it over with and do it.  If we procrastinate too long it could be possible that the US could be threatened by ISIS, and then we will have to take action.  Or, if oil prices are affected then we're gonna care, so I think we should take preventative actions because the Iraqi army is obviously not very effective.  It seems like everything in today's society revolves around money, and if oil prices increase drastically, the American people are not going to be very happy.  I don't understand a lot about the economy, but if oil prices are a big enough concern in the US economic policy we should start taking interest and concern in the ISIS threat on Iraqi oil.  

Source:

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-is-making-the-biggest-threat-to-oil-prices-even-worse-2015-5

Unit 5
Republicans Want to Cut SNAP Funding

Summary:
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as Food Stamps, assists roughly 46.5 million Americans every month.  It is a federal aid program that helps low and no income families buy food and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  The number of people enrolled in the SNAP program greatly increased during the recession a few years ago, but now Republicans want to cut some funding to the SNAP program that would save an estimated $125 billion over ten years by switching to block-grants to states.  The amount of money a state receives currently is determined by the state's needs.  They are proposing that states receive a set chunk of money every year to spend on the program.  Republicans propose that moving SNAP to the state level would reduced administrative costs, but the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities claim that more than 90 percent of the money for SNAP goes right to the EBT cards, and not for administrative purposes, which means the cuts would be directly affecting families.

Analysis:
According to a CBO report a 15 percent budget cut would reduce benefits as much as $600 a year for some families.  When you look at $600 over the course of a year, that isn't that much per month.  It's about as much as a cell phone bill, in some cases it's even less.  Cutting some funds to this program, in my opinion, wouldn't be that bad of an idea.  It could save billions of dollars and save the taxpayers money.  I understand helping out people who are truly in need, but I don't want to be paying taxes to help pay for peoples' Sunday morning coffee and doughnuts. Maybe instead of cutting funding for the program, they can put tighter restrictions on the people they let receive benefits from SNAP and save the money for people who are truly in need.  SNAP is a federal aid program designed to help people, making it part of our Social Policy.  We extensively discussed social policy during unit 5 along with economic policy, foreign policy, and other public policies.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121316/republican-house-budget-proposal-would-cut-snap-food-stamps

Unit 4

Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Gay Marriage

Summary:

In January, the Supreme Court decided to finally rule on the gay marriage debate.  In April, the Court will hear 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments and then provide a ruling before the term ends in June.  They will hear four cases from Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio.  In 2013, the Court ruled on two cases: U.S. v. Windsor which made the federal government recognize gay marriage, and Hollingsworth v. Perry which allowed gay marriage in California.  California was the 13th state to allow gay marriage.  Currently 36 states allow gay marriage, while 14 don't including Tennesse, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan.  The Court will have to consider two different questions:  If states are required to allow same-sex marriages, and if states have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.  The four state cases involve either one or both of these questions.  This ruling will be one of the most historic rulings in modern history since gay marriage is currently one of the most prominent debates in the U.S.


Analysis:

The Court's ruling on this issue will be a monumental moment in U.S. history.  Currently 70% of Americans live in states where gay marriage is legal, but many people want that number to improve to 100%.  There are many people, mostly conservatives, who argue against gay marriage and say that a marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.  The nine justices are very split on the decision, and in 2013 they voted 5-4.  The Obama administration has come in on the side of gay rights.  I personally don't encourage same-sex marriage, but I don't think it's fair that those people should be denied the right to marry who they want.  Just because I don't like the idea of it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed.

Resources:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/

Unit 4

House Passes Keystone Bill, Sending It To Obama For Veto

Summary: The Keystone XL pipeline is probably one of the most controversial, most debated topics in Congressional history. The House has just recently passed a bill (270-152) that approves the construction of the pipeline. This is the eleventh time that the House has voted on a measure to approve the pipeline, and this bill is very similar to the one that was previously passed just with a few amendments. The Senate approved the same bill on January 29, 2015. The bill will now be sent to the President who is most likely going to veto it, making this only the third veto of his presidency. The State Department also has a big say in what happens since the pipeline will cross an international border. Even though the Senate and the House have a majority made up of Republicans, neither chamber has enough votes to override the President’s veto. 

Analysis: Obama did end up vetoing the bill, and the Senate tried to override his veto but failed. The Senate vote was 62-37, with all of the Republicans and a few Democrats voting in favor of an override. Most Democrats, and a lot of environmentalists, are against the Keystone XL Pipeline while Republicans are in favor of it. The Pipeline is said to be either the key to solving America’s economic problems, or a major environmental disaster. The Republicans say that the Pipeline project will create 42,000 jobs, but the Democrats are against the Pipeline because of the damage to the environment. I think that America should refine its own oil and not depend so much on other countries, so therefore the Pipeline could be a good thing, but I also care about the environment. It might also make me a little more upset if I was someone who lived somewhere where the Pipeline was going to be laid, like in Nebraska.

                                 

Resources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/house-keystone-veto_n_6663392.html?utm_hp_ref=house-of-representatives

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-keystone-veto-override-20150304-story.html

Unit 4

Obama Cuts Federal Governments's Carbon Emissions

Summary:

The President is known for supporting renewable energy and reducing the United State's greenhouse gas emissions.  On March 19, 2015, he signed an executive order that reduces the government's carbon footprint.  The plan calls for a forty percent reduction in heat trapping emissions over the next ten years from the 2008 levels.  The White House said that transition will save 18 billion dollars in taxpayer money, and it will increase the government's use of renewable energy sources by 30 percent.  Major government suppliers, like IBM and General Electric, were expected to announce their plan to reduce their carbon footprint as well.  In November, Obama pledged to lower the U.S. carbon emissions by 28 percent in the next ten years.  Conservative lawmakers and groups are not too fond of the President's actions to deal with climate change.  They say that his plan will endanger grid reliability and raise utility prices.

       

Analysis:

Despite the Republicans opposition to environmental regulation, the President signed the executive order that cuts the federal government's greenhouse gas emissions.  The President effectively used the Environmental Protection Agency and other groups to avoid the Republican opposition in Congress and take actions against global warming.  Signing an executive order is one of the implied powers of being president.  Obama has used that power to act on his promise to make this issue a main focus of his second term.  I love the environment and care about protecting it, so I agree with Obama's measures to try and reduce the United States's carbon emissions.  I agree with protecting the environment as long as it doesn't raise utility prices like the Republicans threaten it will.

Article:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/19/obama-cuts-federal-governments-carbon-emissions-to-address-global-warming

Unit 3

Electoral College:  To Keep or Not to Keep?

Summary:

For years Americans have been debating over keeping or scrapping the Electoral College system, but after the Bush/Gore election in 2000 it has been an even bigger topic.  In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the Electoral College, and therefore winning the Presidency.  During that election, Gallup conducted a poll that found 75% of Democrats wanted to scrap the Electoral College, and 56% of Republicans wanted to keep it.  A new Gallup poll was conducted in 2011 that found 62% of Americans wanted to get rid of the Electoral College and have popular vote decide the President, including the majority of Republicans.  People who support switching to popular vote do so on the basis that it makes some votes more important than others.  People who live in swing states have more power than people who live in red or blue states.  Candidates spend all of their time campaigning in these swing states because those states have more of a say in the Electoral College.  Other people like the Electoral College because it protects smaller states and rural areas.  Without the Electoral College people in rural areas would be forgotten about because candidates would focus on trying to win more populated areas.  

2012 Electoral College Results Map

Analysis:

The Electoral College was the main focus of Lesson 5 in Unit 3, and we addressed the pros and cons of the Electoral College.  I believe that the United States should keep the Electoral College because it is part of the foundation of this country.  The creators of the Electoral College system had the right idea to limit the power of the majority.  Without the Electoral College the small rural areas and small ethnic groups would be forgotten.  Candidates would concentrate on getting the vote of large cities and states because they have the most people and therefore the most votes.  The Electoral College forces candidates to campaign to all people of America.  Plus, trying to change the Constitution is a very long process that would take years and cause lots of conflicts and debates.  

Resources:

• http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/electoral-college-gallup-poll-popular-vote-/1#.VPOsiPnF-So
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-edwards/electoral-college-votes_b_1917826.html
• http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/keep-electoral-college

Unit 2

Border Crisis Impacting Public Opinion on Immigration

Summary:


Immigration has been a problem for the government for years, but public opinion on what is the most pressing aspect of immigration has changed. A lot of the illegal immigrants that are crossing the border are unaccompanied children. Some Americans call them refugees and are willing to help them out, while others say that their parents are just using loopholes in the U.S. immigration system. At the beginning of the new century, most Americans believed that the U.S. government should be focusing on stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and deporting those that are already here, but in 2012, the majority of people believed that the government should be focused on making a plan that allows illegal immigrants to become legal U.S. residents. In recent years, people are starting to revert back to their old opinions. In February 2014, 54% of Americans said that legal status was more important that border control, and in July 2014, 51% of Americans said that the government should be stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants at the border. People are very split on what to do with most polls coming out about 50/50. As usual Republicans and Democrats disagree with how to handle the situation with the Republicans wanting more border control and the Democrats wanting to make it easier for the illegal immigrants to become citizens, but people tend to disagree more when it comes to the region in which they live. People who live near the border, in the Southern and Midwestern states, are pushing for more border control, and the people who live in the Northeast are more worried about legalization policies. Independents and people in the west are split on the issue.






Analysis:


Unit 2 dealt a lot with public opinion and where American's stand on certain issues by taking polls. Over the past few years the general public's view on immigration has changed. A lot of polls were conducted the see how American's stand on immigration. As of recent years, the majority of people want stricter border control instead of focusing on legal status, even though Americans are split down the middle pretty much. I believe that the immigration process is very complicated and should be revised so that it doesn't take so long for immigrants to become legal citizens, but I also believe in stricter border control. If the border security is stricter, then there won't be as many illegal immigrants flowing in, therefore not having to worry about legal status. I also understand though, that having more border security will cost a lot of money. I don’t exactly know what is the right solution, or if there even is a right solution.






http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/24/cnn-poll-border-crisis-impacting-public-opinion-on-immigration/