Fear Issues

     As we transition in AP Gov this week from interest groups to the Constitution, we have the opportunity to write about anything in the news. Arguably the most prevalent event in political news at this time is our policy concerning Syrian refugees, so that is what this is about, with a highlight on our government.
     A CNBC article written Wednesday, November 18 demonstrated how many states are opposed to any more middle eastern immigrants, primarily Syrians, arriving in the U.S. The issue is that the states cannot do very much about restricting immigration, because the relocation of the refugees is a federal operation. Included in the article was a map of the United States(shown below) that showed the results of an analysis done by the Big Crunch, (affiliated with CNBC) on which states were open to accepting Syrian refugees and which were opposed. A scant 10 of 50 are not opposed to accepting refugees. (8 state's decisions were pending.) In light of this, the State Department has announced they will keep their plans to accept 10,000 refugees next year.

     Today, Thursday Nov. 19, the House may vote on a new act proposed Tuesday by Texan Rep. Michael McCaul. (It is interesting to note that although Texas has 242 Syrian refugees living within it's borders, the state is now opposed to accepting more refugees.) The act is called the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015, or SAFE for short. If it were approved a Syrian refugee would have to be unanimously approved by the FBI, Homeland Security, and the director of National Intelligence after background checks conducted by all three. All of this has arisen due to the recent terrorist attacks in France.
     Just as with any other issue Congress is trying to solve, there are two sides. The conservative side, in the words of Rep. House Speaker Paul Ryan, says it's "Better to be safe than sorry". They are worried a terrorist could easily slip in among our many refugees, and devastate the U.S. like the tragedy in Paris. On the liberal side, the screening process is already incredibly in-depth for refugees- only 1% of the global population of refugees is recommended for resettlement in the U.S. Fear of what may happen can't impede on the potential aid we could be giving to these refugees.
    Over the summer I was privileged enough to make the acquaintance of a Syrian woman who had been relocated in Louisville. She spoke of terrible violence and killing, some for no reason other than lack of a better alternative, because the country is so in shambles. It is people like her that felt blessed to be here, but are now surely questioning our government. First saved, and now scorned? Their brothers and parents and friends are still trying to seek asylum here, but now they and their people are distrusted more than ever. Many refugees have great respect for our government- our systems put into place to aid people are very impressive. Now they are seeing another side of the U.S.
    So the country is at odds, split between two sides. However, this split appears to be leaning towards the conservative viewpoint. In the mechanics of our government, the state reps will supposedly vote for what they feel reflects the views of their constituents. If the country is preoccupied by fear at this moment, naturally the majority of views will reflect a more fear- driven response; keep out potential threats.
     The article on CNBC expected Congress to have quickly voted on the SAFE Act before Thanksgiving. It is still unknown whether the Syrian refugees seeking sanctuary in our country will have our acceptance to be thankful for this year.

Click here to read the article:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/18/syrian-refugees-opposed-issue-goes-to-congress.html

We-Don't-Have-Important-Issues-so-We-Have-to-Make-Up-Silly-Issues Issues

     Our focus the past two weeks in AP Gov has been interest groups. When first posed with the task of writing another blog on interest groups, I wasn't sure where to look. To be honest, after a while of browsing the (boring) political and economic news articles, I gave myself a break and just read some articles for fun. The first one I came across was about daily fantasy sports being banned in New York. Then, as I was reading, an interest group appeared like manna from heaven.

     Fantasy Sports for All is an interest group established to protect the rights of fantasy sports fans. The most recent attack on fantasy players' freedoms has come in the form of the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman. On November 6th he placed a ban on daily fantasy sports sites on the grounds that they are a form of illegal gambling. Schneiderman also stated that "Daily fantasy sports are creating the same public health and economic concerns as other forms of gambling."
     Then on November 10th, Fantasy Sports for All organized a protest outside of Schneider's office in Manhattan. There were 300 fans and employees of some of the fantasy sports sites in attendance. Some such sites as FanDuel (based in New York) and DraftKings (based in Boston) were there, and many of the protesters held signs with slogans like 'Bench Schneiderman', and 'Schneiderman should focus on real problems'. The fantasy sports players feel that their activities are legal, and that because they pay taxes and get 1099's on their money, they should be free to spend it on whatever they want, including more fantasy sports. Due to the ban, approximately 10% of FanDuel's users would be unable to participate. One argument FanDuel presented against Schneiderman was that up until very recently, New York had no problem with the fantasy teams. However, because, "the Attorney General now realized he could get himself some press coverage" FanDuel says that Schneiderman has attacked the sites for publicity.
   
     And it is generating more attention for Eric Schneiderman (this blog has already mentioned his name 8 times). This issue has popped up as of late, and has only recently been generating such publicity. It was even mentioned in a GOP debate, when Jeb Bush was asked for his position on it. The members of Fantasy Sports for All, who have joined for purposive reasons, are very interested in this issue of daily fantasy sports. You can tell, because 300 were motivated to protest. (This is a perfect example of grassroots lobbying.) As a nation of joiners, it is not surprising that this group has generated so much interest. After all, it involves three things Americans love: money, sports, and arguing.
     However, ideological interest groups, specifically those whose members have only purposive incentives for remaining members, tend to sputter out quickly. As the protesters were holding signs reading 'Schneiderman should focus on real problems', they themselves proclaimed this dispute over daily fantasy sports to be of marginal importance. In a year when either the bans have been lifted, stricter, more wide-spread legislation has been passed, or everyone forgets about it, the  Fantasy Sports for All group will have little reason to remain in existence. In this case it will either have to keep riling people up about fantasy sports, or just accept it's demise.


Click here to read the article about it:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/13/news/fantasy-sports-protest-fanduel-draftkings/index.html?iid=SF_LN

Money Issues

     This week in AP Government we have been studying interest groups. Our focus, of course, has been interest groups in the U.S. (and there are a multitude to study- America was made for interest groups) but our country does not have a monopoly on them.
     A couple months ago Volkswagen, the biggest carmaker in Europe, admitted they had skewed the nitrogen oxide emissions tests. The company had inserted software into some of their diesel vehicles that showed emissions that were far less in the lab than they were in reality.  To add to this debacle, on Tuesday Nov. 3 Volkswagen announced that they have also been dishonest about the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, as well as fuel consumption levels. This is significant to every country that has approved the sale of Volkswagen vehicles, but it has an even bigger impact in Europe where there are fines given for excessive fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The total costs of this scandal could be up to $38 billion in those fines, as well as lawsuits and vehicle refits.
     The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), an interest group which represents 118 European investors, published an open letter on Nov. 6 requesting to the European Union that it make the vehicle tests more rigorous. It also asked that they would either require each nation to carry out random, on-the-road tests, or to establish an EU authority to regulate the compliance with the EU standards. Many of the investors the IIGCC represents are shareholders in VW, whose shares have decreased 40% in value since before the big reveal in September. This drop in the share's value represents a loss of billions of euros to shareholders.
     The IIGCC is a european interest group, one that would be classified as an institutional interest group. This means that it represents not individual members, but rather a set of related groups. In this case, those groups are shareholders, and shareholders who have lost a substantial amount of money due to the shortcomings of Europe's largest vehicle producer.
     I like to imagine interest groups as a protective big brother. When the little siblings are threatened, the big brother steps in and take care of the situation, but not by beating up the perpetrator. Instead, he tells on them to his dad, and he is the one who really gets things done.
     So some of the IIGCC's plethora of little siblings complained about their plummeting Volkswagen shares, and the IIGCC told on VW to their "dad"- the European Union.
     There are several ways for interest groups to influence or "tattle" to get attention from the government. Some strategies include providing specific, exclusive information, motivating individuals to contact officials, donating money, and even organizing displays of civil disobedience. In this case the IIGCC wrote an open letter to the EU, and with the huge amount of money at stake, it is sure to be paid attention to.
     It is too soon to say if the EU will heed all of the requests set forth in the letter. On Thursday the 5th the EU did send out a letter to each nation asking them to become more broad in their investigations into the possible fraudulent emissions levels. This is a fine balance for the EU, as it is in most cases of this scale, due to the fact that national policy is heavily influenced by car manufacturers' own interest groups. We have studied in class that in the U.S., legislators and other government officials oftentimes will act according to their own thoughts and values, rather than what interest groups desire of them. However, that doesn't mean that interest groups cannot make an impact. We will simply have to wait and see if the IIGCC will be able to prompt some action from the European Union, or if the car manufacturers will win in this battle between the interest groups.

Click here for an article concerning the IIGCC requests:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/06/big-investors-seek-tougher-rules-on-car-emission-testing.html
Click here for an article with some additional information:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/vw-pay-extra-taxes-owed-because-it-understated-co2-emissions-n458851

Jealousy Issues

It's an age old story; the once only child becomes an older sibling and is suddenly jealous of the attention the new baby receives. This same situation appears to be happening in grand scale with the states of New Jersey and Florida, with the Republican presidential race in the role of the new baby.
On October 29 two articles concerning republican presidential candidates were released, both serious requests. The first was addressed to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, written by the Sun Sentinel. This article, “Marco Rubio should resign, not rip us off”, called for the resignation of the young Republican Senator. Some of their reasons included a source who is a friend of Rubio's saying that he hated his job, the 59 senate votes Rubio has missed, and the $174,000 salary that Rubio receives.  
The second article was written by the New York Times and entitled, “Gov. Christie, Time to Go Home”. The Editorial Board began by stating that it is the time of the campaign for the underdogs to drop out, and included Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. The article described his performance in the recent GOP debate as “barely there”. It also listed a number of shortcomings on the Governor’s part that make him unfit to be president, including “his role in New Jersey’s budget crisis, betrayal on affordable housing and the interlocking scandals on his watch, from Bridgegate to ‘the chairman’s flight’”.  
Both Sen. Rubio and Gov. Christie's home states seem to feel forgotten, or at least the media is portraying them that way. In AP Gov we have been learning that the media has three main roles in the world of politics: gatekeeper, scorekeeper, and watchdog. The two articles exemplify the third role of the watchdog. 
I do not keep up with all the political news (I don't have time- I'm an AP student) but before this past week I don't recall hearing very much about Sen. Rubio lacking as a senator or as Gov. Christie just being unfit to be president. In this way the media has acted as the watchdog, bringing criticism and doubt upon the candidates. What is meaningful about this new development in the media is that many potential voters get their information about politics from the internet, and some who may not have previously thought badly of Rubio or Christie, or who may have even been in support of one or the other, could be having second thoughts.  
Both editorial stories are also on the sensationalist side. The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board claimed that Rubio is ripping them off for accepting a $174,000 salary when he is not doing his job. They portrayed him not only as a swindler but as a hypocrite, who criticized workers from the Department of Veterans Affairs for not doing their jobs. Of course, they also added in that he basically hates his job as a senator. In the New York Times the Editorial Board pointed to "interlocking scandals on his watch, from Bridgegate to ‘the chairman’s flight’”. These are all examples of sensationalism, using the most exciting, juicy details to snag a reader's attention. Unfortunately, it is these sensationalist tidbits that do draw readers in, and I would venture to guess more people will focus on these details than other objective information they may hear.  
There is not clear evidence that Rubio and Christie's home states are truly jealous of all the attention their respective candidates are giving to the race, or if it is simply the editorial boards of two newspapers who think so. Regardless, the news is out, and voters are reading, watching, and thinking.


To read the article about Sen. Rubio, click here:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-editorial-rubio-bush-gs1028-20151027-story.html

To read the article about Gov. Christie, click here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/governor-chris-christie-time-to-go-home.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=1