Federal Hurricane Relief

 

Texas and Louisiana will need billions from congress after Hurricane Harvey - Bob Bryan, Business Insider, August 31
(link:http://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-harvey-congress-relief-fund-bill-options-2017-8)

Congress in Natural Disaster Relief

In the coming weeks, Congress must decide how it will address the crisis of Texas, Louisiana, and now Florida. Conflict between Texan republicans who had voted against relief/aid for those affected by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and northeast lawmakers has arisen. Congress now has three general options. The first is to pass multiple bills that each target specific issues with specific funds, much like a categorical grant. The second is more akin to a block grant, where congress passes a standalone relief package as they did for Hurricane Katerina ($52M) and Hurricane Sandy. This approach has been widely criticized by republicans as it gives the states too much discretion allowing them to fund unrelated projects with funds intended for disaster relief. The third is to add a non-germane rider to the bill to use the urgency of hurricane to the advantage of an unrelated intrest. These speculations are based on what congress has done in the past to alleviate crises and send aid during times of disaster.

1. Which one of the three approaches do you see to be most fit? Does the widespread scale of Hurricane Harvey change how you think Congress should approach the issue? 

2. Which congressional group (the house or senate) would actually be able to carry out approach 3 and what side effects do the rules that make this possible have in terms of defining the roles of the House and Senate?

3. Historically, what has made it the federal government's responsibility (as opposed to the states') to address the issues associated with natural disaster?

Is Trump's new "compromise" really a compromise?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/daca-deal-or-no-deal-trump-democrats-dreamers/539784/

Most people are aware that the DACA provides security around undocumented children born in the U.S, as well as Trump’s standpoint as of a couple weeks ago that ensured everyone he was not a fan of supporting “dreamers,” something Democrats were not happy with. After altering his views, and essentially the intention of the agreement, while dining over Chinese food at the White House with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, they came to an agreement; DACA would promote a new ideology to Trump-provide more border patrol security, not the wall. However, Trump immediately declared that the protections would end after just six months and almost immediately signaled that he wanted to strike a deal to arrange them legislatively, as he still has intentions on pursuing the wall “later” in a series of tweets followed by the announcement, leaving wiggle room for Trump as well has his unhappy Republicans.  

Do you think this plan will last? Why or why not?

Is this actually a compromise?

What severity will this have on the future? (I know this is vague-but think about the lack of diversity that can come from this act in the future)

Graham-Cassidy Health Care Bill

Healthcare - Since the 2010 passing of the American Care Act, Republicans have been vowing to fight and repeal it. However, even though they've held a House majority since 2010, a Senate majority since 2016, and the presidency since 2017, they have failed to pass any meaningful legislation that can alleviate the effects of a straight repeal of the law. Therefore, they are aiming to replace it with something better. This year, we've seen two attempts to replace Obamacare (the nickname for the ACA), and a third is imminent. Here are two interesting articles on the topic.

Politico - a little more of a breakdown of each effect, not much analysis
Vox- More of a deep look into the similarities and differences between all the different bills

Questions (just answer 1):
1. Should we disband the Congressional Budget Office? If major legislation like this one will go unchecked by the CBO, what's the point of having it around and then ignoring it?

2. In your opinion, what are the most dangerous sections of the Graham-Cassidy bill? The most reasonable? Problems with Obamacare you'd like to see fixed?

3.  In 2013, Democrats voted to enact a rule that "the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote." Earlier this year, Republicans decided to reduce the 60-vote Supreme Court confirmation limit to a majority. Republicans are planning to pass the legislation discussed above with a simple 51-vote majority used specifically for budgetary issues instead of the traditional 60-vote super-majority.What is your opinion on these examples, which demonstrate that Senate is becoming increasingly less cooperative and more partisan? How can we address partisanship and create a culture of compromise?

North Korea - the threat that doesn't go away - will it achieve nuclear deterrence or will it receive "fire and fury" never seen before?




What should the West do? - Mark Almond, Daily Mail, August 29th

As evidenced by another missile launch that traveled over Japan (seriously - a missile flies over your country...) as well as the thermonuclear explosion last week, North Korea continues to flaunt the US and the increasingly strict UN sanctions. The cartoon above reflects the fact the leaders of North Korea have used their military strength and provocations to maintain their relevance and negotiate for terms that guarantee their survival. However, the current level of brinkmanship does seem to be teetering on the edge of actual conflict as South Korea, Japan and the US increase their level of readiness. In fact, President Trump's threats to North Korea underscore the propaganda used by the north that characterizes the US as wolves intent on the destruction of the "defensive DRPK." The defensive argument does relate to the idea of nuclear deterrence, which states that nuclear armed states cannot attack one another because of the massive destruction that would result. Given all the factors, Mark Almond is able to detail 7 options in the article, though none of the options seem viable or desirable. There are obviously catastrophic consequences if there is any direct conflict and Trump's idea that China would simply pressure the North Koreans does not seem to be working. Moreover, Russia continues its limited public support of sanctions while surreptitiously maintaining relations with the Kim regime. Surprisingly, the days of Jim Jong Il's madness coupled with his unique love of basketball and Hennessy seem dreamy compared to the nightmare scenarios that a Trump-Un escalation might bring.

1.  Which of the options in the article provide the best strategy to deal with King Jong Un?  Explain.

2.  Do you think nuclear deterrence theory is accurate and how does that affect King Jong Un's strategy?

3.  Which countries are truly threatened by Jim Jong Un & how does it relate to US involvement in the immediate region near the Korean peninsula?

Trump's Prediction Comes True - Sheriff Joe "will be just fine."




Legal challenge to Arapaio pardon begins - Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, August 30

President Trump invoked his broad constitutional power to pardon Americans with a somewhat unprecedented pardon of Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arapaio on August 25th as Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas.  The visual above reflects the idea that Arapaio was a justifiably tough law figure that was simply "doing his job" as Trump said at an rally in Phoenix earlier in the week.  However, no other president has used the powerful pardon power to help a public official held in contempt of court for violating the constitutional rights of random US citizens.  A public interest group called Project Democracy is challenging the constitutionality of the pardon on the grounds that it violates the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause as well as the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.  The group claims that Trump cannot "obviate the court's powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake."  Last, many observers suspect that the pardon of Arapaio is actually a message to anyone related to the FBI probe of Trump associates and their connections to Russia. Anyone under investigation as part of former FBI Director Robert Mueller's probe might resist any inquiries with the knowledge that Trump will use the executive branch's immense power to pardon on anyone that faces actual charges in the future.  Hearings are schedules and the courts will weigh in, though an overturn of a pardon would be unprecedented to the nth degree.
Respond to one of the following:

1.  In light of recent talk of "fixing DACA" and protecting dreamers, how does the Arapaio pardon relate to Trump's general narrative and his specific issues with immigration?

2.  What is the most controversial pardon in US history (Nixon, Rich, Patty Hearst, Draft Dodgers, Confederate Soldiers, Chelsea Manning - her sentence was actually commuted, others...)?

3.  Obvious question - do you think the pardon was reasonable?  Why or why not?