Obama & Environmentalists

 President Obama has had a rocky relationship with environmentalists over the past couple of years he has seemingly favored the oil and gas industry and business leaders. When industry critics warned that a new air-quality rule would cost millions of jobs, the president asked the EPA to delay action and rewrite the rule. Weeks later, the EPA announced that it would miss a deadline for another effort to combat global warming. Obama doesnt want to jeopardize reelection, so most of his decisions have been made carefully. These decisions, however, continue to anger environmentalists.

Obama has done much to patch things up with environmentalists, public health advocates and liberal groups. Environmental leaders say the president’s decision to block the pipeline project demonstrated that Obama was finally listening to them. But of course, him listening to one side angers the other side. Oil industry executives and Republican presidential candidates say he is jeopardizing a project that could add tens of thousands of “shovel ready” jobs to the economy. Obama is trying to please everyone with his new budget proposal.

1. Why would Obama side with companies instead of environmentalists?

 do what the environmentalists want would cost millions of jobs

2. What announcement did Obama make during his State of the Union that upset environmentalists?

 he vowed to open more than 75 percent of potential offshore oil and gas resources to exploration.

3. What has Obama done to please environmentalists?

 Implementing new rules that will double automobile fuel  efficiency by 2025

4. What does Obama's budget include that will upset environmentalists?

Cuts in the EPA's budget,especially funds for Super Fund toxic waste cleanups, and a revolving fund to maintain states’ water pipelines, purification facilities and vital waterways

5. What does Obama's budget include that will make environmentalists happy?

a proposal to spend $6.7 billion on clean and renewable energy projects

6. What is a cap and trade program? (you'll have to look it up)

 a program that establishes a cap throughout an economy on emissions of a substance considered a pollutant

7. Why would spending increases for the Department of Energy Efficiency be a better form of spending than EPA enforcement of current rules?

The increase would encourage the construction of more energy efficient commercial buildings, and would support the Interior Department’s program of allowing new renewable energy projects on public land.

Inflation

 People are scared of the word inflation. But inflation is one of the easiest ways to help the economy even though it might not be the best solution. Credit shocks are the reasons that recoveries after crises are slow.

Banks stop making loans in order to heal. Consumers use extra cash to pay down debts. And governments end up in a gridlock, because no one knows who to blame. But two very educated professors, one from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the other from Harvard, think that the solution is higher prices.

There are some benefits to inflation. Inflation would shrink the value of the debts both the government and borrowers have to pay. Higher salaries would also make it easier for borrowers to pay back their loans helping banks. Inflation pushes people and companies to spend money. Also, increasing inflation could stimulate the economy, as well as lower our debts.

1. Why is it bad for the economy for consumers to save or pay down debts?

 the value of the dollar is decreasing and people use the little extra cash that they have to pay down debts

2. How would inflation help people pay off debts?

 inflation would shrink the value of debts

3. How can inflation stimulate spending?

 If you know prices are going to drop or stay flat, then you will delay a purchase. likewise, if you know prices are going to rise, then you will spend your money now.

4. The author argues the Fed should allow inflation to increase, how can they do this?

 higher gas prices and raise the inflation target to 6%

5. Why does the former Fed Chairman warn against using inflation as a tool to help the economy?

 the benefits of inflation last temporarily but the effects of higher prices last a long time

6. What alternative does he suggest? What would that end up causing?

institute a delayed consumption tax, prices would go up

7. What would be a positive impact of a national sales tax?

 it could boost demand in the same way as inflation

8. What would be a negative impact of a national sales tax?

 the fear of it would make things more expensive

9. What does the author mean when he says "It's something the Fed could do on its own, and get done now"?

 the job of the Fed is to regulate the money in circulation, so they can just increase the money in circulation themselves as early as tomorrow

Spending and Infrastructure

Republicans brought up a highway spending bill. This bill consisted of attempting to bring the Keystone XL Pipeline back from the grave, stopping funding for Amtrak, and tried to expand off shore drilling. This bill would never become a law mainly because the Democrats are against off shore drilling. But this bill also spotlights a major issue. America's old system for funding its highways is going downhill, and no politicians know exactly how to fix it.

Since FDR, the federal government has maintained a Highway Trust Fund which is paid for mostly by taxes on fuel, that helps ay for the construction of our roads. It originally was a good idea to make drivers have to pay at least something for the roads that THEY use. But the gas tax rate hasnt increased since '93 and inflation diminishes the value of the dollars that once were enough to pay for this. The problem is.....cars are becoming more and more fuel efficient. Thats definitely a good thing. Thats what we want, but Congress doesnt like this. More efficient cars means that you have to buy less gas. Less gas purchased means that these roads wont get paid for. No one is offering a good idea as to how we can make up for this loss of money.

1. Why won't the Republican sponsored bill at the beginning of the article ever actually become law?

 it attempts to expand off shore drilling and Democrats arent going for that in the Senate

2. What is the Highway Trust Fund?

 a fund that helps cover the repair and construction of our country's roads, bridges, and mass transit that is paid for mainly by taxes on fuel

3. What does the article mean when it says "inflation has eaten away a third of its value"?

 the gas tax has remained the same since '93. the cost of everything else has increased which makes the dollar less valuable meaning what was a lot then...is barely anything now

4. How is it actually both a good and bad thing for Congress that Americans have consumed less gasoline?

 good: more fuel efficient cars are emerging bad: less money is flowing into the highway trust fund

5. Explain what Exhibit 2.19 shows us.

 assuming that average gas mileage for cars and light trucks would rise to 31 and 45 MPG the real value of the trust fund would eventually to drop by as much as 40%

6. Explain what Exhibit 2.21 shows us.

 how much money the fund would need to maintain its purchasing power in 2008 dollars.

7. How have the Obama Administration's new gasoline consumption standards created new challenges for Congress?

 he wants to increase the mpg even more, which would result in less gas consumption

8. What are potential solutions to the problem?

 moving to a system that charges drivers based on the number of miles driven, rather than the gas they burn

Moderate Reaction to both Articles

Sullivan and Frum have two completely different views on how Obama has been doing and what his critics think of him. Tomasky agrees more with Sullivan. He thinks that Mitt Romneys attacks on Obama are crazy and just off the wall. Frum thinks that Obama is patiently building some kind of Leviathan state that will swallow initiative and crush freedom. Tomasky thinks that he is exaggerating juuuust a little bit. He believes that Obama is just a Keynesian at heart. There is something, however, that Tomasky doesnt like about Obama.

Obama has this tactic known as a long game. This is when you just plan ahead for the long run and whatever happens in between happens. Tomasky wishes tha Obama had more of a short game because Obama misses a lot of opportunities by just waiting around. He doesnt think that this is good leadership. If Obama wins reelection, he needs to develop a short game because he will only have four years to do a lot of things.

1. EXPLAIN why he agrees with Sullivan's critiques of Obama's critics.

 most of the president’s prominent critics on the right say pretty precisely the silly and content-free things that Andrew accuses them of saying and Romney attacks on Obama are just ridiculous

2. What does Tomasky think of Frum's criticisms of Obama?
  he thinks that he is exaggerating

3. EXPLAIN Tomasky's criticism of Obama's long game vs short game.
 he wishes that he had more of a short game in the past three years, he says that he gets so obsessed with being right in the long run that he misses a lot of opportunities

4. Which criticism of Obama by liberals does Tomasky say Sullivan has ignored?
 that despite Obamas MANY accomplishments, he could have done more if he wasnt afraid to go at it with the Republicans like when he left those Fed seats empty

5. Summarize Tomasky's critique of Obama's leadership style.
 he thinks that it is the complete opposite of leadership. he isnt really taking a stand he just sits back and let others do what they do, hoping that in the long run he will win

6. What challenges does Tomasky see facing Obama if he wins a second term? 

 the Republicans have out-negotiated him. He will only have four years to get a lot done and the stakes are very high

Bureaucracy & Courts

In 2007, a couple started to fill in land that they had just purchased with dirt and rocks. They had plans to build a new house on the land, but the Sacketts later received a notice from the EPA. The notice said that they were in violation of the Clean Water Act. Fines were dropped on the. Fines that they could not even dream about paying. The couple tried to challenge the EPAs allegations, but they were unsuccessful.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito both pointed out the problems that the property owners were faced with to General Malcom Steward. The General had no responses to the "what would you do if?" questions. This case has also attracted the attention of many environmental agencies. Some people argued that the couple was irresponsible because they didnt take the time to check with the EPA. A ruling will likely be held in June.

1. Who is the plaintiff?

 Sackett

2. Do they have standing to sue? Why?

 yes, they are the party that is directly affected

3. What is a compliance order?

 the order that the EPA sent them saying they have to do something or else

4. In this case, what does the plaintiff stand to lose if they lose the case?

 they will lose everything

5. How does this issue provide an example of "red tape"?

 a federal agency regulating something that prevents one from doing something

6. How is the Court expected to rule?

 in fovor of the Sacketts

7. Why is this case being heard at the Supreme Court?

 it got appealed

8. What would the National Resources Defense Council be an example of, and how might they be involved in the case?

 it is an environmental group and they are moree than likely thinking the same thing as theEPA

9. How does the compliance order potentially violate the couple's due process?

 they were non reviewable

10. What is the central issue of this case? (it's not about whether or not these people can build their house).

 whether EPA's use of non-reviewable compliance orders violates the Sacketts' right to due process of law.

11. What is the Clean Water Act?

 a federal law in the United States governing water pollution.

12. What does the lawyer for the EPA say the couple should have done?

 they should have checked in with the EPA

13. Why do people hate the bureaucracy?

 ppl think that they make all these unnecessary rules