Blog Post 2.6 - "Lobbying & Tax Reform"

1. One part of the House version of the bill could cost General Electric more than a billion dollars in taxes, specifically, the part that removes a deduction of some overseas losses on a one-time tax on overall overseas earnings. 
2. The Senate version allows them to use those losses when calculating its tax liability. 
3. Foreign airlines want to eject a provision in the Senate bill that would require them to pay taxes on income earned on US flights in some cases. Delta wants to keep this provision to raise their own profits. 
4. Number 4 is missing.
5. It will go to a conference committee where it will be merged with the House bill and sent to the White House for the president's signature. 
6. The real estate business is worried that doubling the standard deduction will discourage people from itemizing their tax returns and claiming the mortgage deduction, which is a key incentive for people to buy homes. 
7. The Build Coalition represents a group of associations from the telecommunications, manufacturing, and agricultural industries. 
8. The corporate tax rate would be slashed from 35% to 20%, and a new 25% tax rate for "pass through" businesses like partnerships, sole proprietorships, and family farms.
9. The Not One Penny interest group wants to ensure that the new tax plan is not a boon for the rich. 
10. They have been advertising in congressional districts to pressure lawmakers. It is unclear whether they are advertising to the people, in which case it would be grassroots lobbying, or if they are advertising directly to legislators, in which case it would simply be lobbying. 

Blog Post 2.5 - "Lisa Murkowski"

1. Lisa Murkowski from Alaska and Susan Collins from Maine.
2. She has said that "tax reform is complicated...when you add health care reform...it continues to complicate it," which seems to indicate a no vote. However, she has carefully stated that this is not a definitive position. She has also stated that she favors repealing the individual mandate, but this is also not definitive. 
3. Republicans added a rider that would allow portions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be drilled for oil and natural gas. 
4. The proposal to begin drilling in that area has been immensely popular in Alaska, so much so that opposing it is political suicide. It could be a financial boon to Alaska as a whole. 
5. The rate of uninsured persons in Alaska fell 7.2% after the passage of Obamacare, and she doesn't want to see that reversed, especially since Republican plans were supposed to hit Alaska particularly hard. 
6. The Refuge was created in 1960, so drilling was probably not allowed for 57 years. It would have been permitted in 1980, 37 years ago, but the lack of an environmental impact study and Congressional approval means that it is still not allowed. 
7. Each Alaskan that has been in the state more than a year gets a check paid from the dividend of the earnings on the Permanent Fund, which in previous years has been around $2,200 but this year is projected to be around $1,100.
8. As an instructed delegate, Murkowski would reflect the views of her constituency. Since a significant chunk of people want to keep Obamacare, she would probably support the tax plan if a stabilization bill were passed in conjunction. If not, she would still probably vote for the plan, since not all of Alaska wants Obamacare, but all of it wants to open up the refuge to drilling. As a trustee, she would act according to her best judgment, which seems to be wavering. I'm not entirely sure how she would vote, but I would guess that she would not vote for it, since she seems to think that health care is important. Finally, as a partisan, she would vote according to her party, which means she would vote in favor of the bill.

Blog Post 2.4 - "Looking Ahead to 2018"

1. Twelve House Republicans and two Senate Republicans have announced they do not plan to run for reelection in 2018. 
2. Only two House Democrats are not running again, and zero from the Senate.
3. The only time there was a discrepancy between the parties this big was 2008, which turned out to be a major year for Democratic victories. 
4. Many Republicans fear a backlash against their party as a result of Trump's low ratings, and this fear is exacerbated by Virginia's recent Democratic wins. Others may simply not be willing to face a tough and uncertain election, or they may not want to be in the minority even though their seat is probably safe. Some say there are limits to a certain committee or subcommittee position they hold, or others may just want to retire. 
5. Safe red districts may be threatened by a potential backlash against the Republican party as a result of Trump's performance, reflected in his low approval rating. 
6. Incumbents hold a natural advantage in elections, as a result of their name recognition, history of wins reflecting a certain amount of popularity, etc., so the fact that Democrats don't have to run against a Republican with that advantage means they will face somewhat easier elections. 
7. Strong or potentially strong candidates are more likely to run in an open-seat election than against an incumbent, since they feel they have a better chance of winning. This may be the case with Jeff Van Drew, who has for years refused to run against incumbent LoBiondo. 
8. In neutral congressional years, the advantage has recently been somewhere between 3 and 7 percent. 

Blog Post 2.3 - "Media Coverage of Trump"

1. Right-leaning media outlets cited fewer types of sources, offered fewer negative and more positive evaluations of Trump and his administration, and had reporters that were less likely to challenge something the president said than left-leaning or more neutral outlets.
2. Left-leaning outlets used more types of sources and were more likely to use Trump and his administration, outside experts, or interest groups as sources. They were also more likely to include both Republican and Democratic perspectives. 
3. They were at least three times more likely to have negative coverage of Trump. 
4. Left-leaning sources refuted statements 15% of the time, whereas right-leaning ones refuted only 2%. 
5. Stories about the president's political skills, immigration, presidential appointments and nominations, U.S.-Russia relations, and health care. 
6. Most stories were structured around Trump's character and not his policy. This is probably because he is such a cartoon that focusing on his character will get more views, and there is also not that much policy to review that is reasonable enough to seriously discuss. 
7. The most common sources were Trump and his administration (74%), another news organization or journalist (35%), and Republican and Democratic members of Congress (26% and 21% respectively).
8. Studies with two or more source types were more likely to have a negative assessment. 
9. Twitter was used as a source in 16% of stories. 
10. Coverage of Trump and his administration has been much less focused on policy and much more negative than it was for previous presidents. 

Blog 2.2 - "Hurricanes and Agenda Control"

1. The media has been covering a failed health care bill, a primary election in Alabama, and a dispute between Trump and some NFL players, among other topics. 
2. Hurricane Maria and Puerto Rico seem to be mentioned about 2,000 fewer times. When Puerto Rico is compared to Texas, that number climbs to about 3,000. 
3. Hurricane Maria was mentioned about half as much as Harvey and Irma. Texas was mentioned three times more than Puerto Rico, and Florida four times as much. 
4. BBC covered Hurricane Maria more than its US counterparts, and CNN covered it more than its US competitors. 
5. Many people cite Puerto Rico's territorial status as the reason for its lack of attention and delays in aid. 
6. People will not know about the hurricanes, first of all. Those that do know will not care that much, nor will they place hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico high on the list of things the government should do. 
7. The idea that the media does not pay attention to territories is very likely. Americans, as the article states, don't even know that Puerto Rican residents are American citizens, so they would think that Puerto Rico matters as much as American states like Texas and Florida. 
8. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists probably sees this undercoverage as a result of bias or prejudice toward Hispanics, considering that is the majority of the population of Puerto Rico. They would be sympathetic to the situation of Puerto Ricans; thus they would call for more attention to place it higher on the policy agenda. 
9. More media coverage would mean greater awareness. Greater awareness would almost certainly have led to faster relief efforts and aid delivery from the mainland United States, and it would probably also lead to greater donations directly from and for citizens. 
10. The government would not have hesitated in their delivery of aid. I imagine the amount of aid given would probably be much greater, and the insults hurled at Puerto Rican officials would have seen a lot more backlash than they did. 

Blog Post 2.1 - "The Revolving Door"

1. Senators are more likely to become lobbyists, with half of them going on to that profession and only a third of representatives. 
2. The lobbying industry was simply not as big then, with most of the growth in lobbying occurring during the 1990s.
3. The research only documents the number of registered lobbyists, when there is a significant number of former congressmen that do not register but still do work that is incredibly similar to lobbying. There is probably twice as much lobbying going on than reported. Also, data before 1995, registration rules were a lot looser so there were likely more than reported as well. 
4. Former chairmen probably have more connections than other, regular congressmen. More connections means better lobbyists, since their major function is access. Chairmen also have better senses of what needs to be done to affect policy, since they have experience in directing policy. 
5. The author is not convinced that registration requirements are very effective, since he says that former congressmen will always find ways to lobby without officially registering. He also says that the problem is really where they are lobbying. 
6. For every $1 spent by public interest groups and lobbies combined, corporations spend $34. 
7. Former congressmen are much more likely to lobby for corporations instead of public interest groups. This is because they charge dearly for their services, and only corporations are really able to pay these high rates. 

Blog Post 1.7 - "Does Campaigning Work?"

1. All types of outreach, including door to door canvassing, phone banking, direct mail, and even advertising has no effect on voters' choice of candidate in a general election. No one targeted is persuaded, unless these tactics are used in primary elections and ballot-initiative campaigns. Campaigns can turn out voters who already made up their mind and voters can change their minds when prompted by politicians they like. 
2. A 2015 primary, a special election that year, and the 2016 election. 
3. Actions that happen within two months of the election had an effect of basically zero (-1.9%). 
4. Actions close to elections do not change peoples' minds, but actions taken further away from the election had a real chance of changing someone's opinion, but the effect will likely be gone by election day. 
5. Campaign activities are likely to have an effect in primary and special elections, but not in general elections. 
6. Boosting turnout, primary election, and perhaps special election persuasion is possible.
7. Groups would probably do better by boosting turnout at the end of an election rather than persuading people early on. Campaign funders may also want to donate more to primary elections and ballot initiatives. 
8. The 2008 US Senate race in Oregon was between Gordon Smith, a pro-life, pro-LGBT (for a Republican at the time), moderate, and Jeff Merkley, who was pro-choice. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon worked together to educate pro-choice voters on Smith's actual views regarding abortion, as it was a common misconception that Smith was pro-choice. Canvassers also left flyers attacking North Carolina governor Pat McCrory on his position on the "bathroom bill." Since they targeted black voters in particular, the campaign was successful. 
9. Voter registration efforts are costly, about $60 per vote, far more expensive than turnout efforts.
10. Persuasion nets two votes by both adding one to your side and subtracting one from your opponent's side, whereas finding new voters just adds one vote. 

Blog Post 1.6 - "Free Speech Week"

1. Conservatives might actually want to change minds, but it is more likely that they want to challenge a site that they see as intolerant of conservative viewpoints and provoke disruptions that will discredit their opposition.
2. The first reaction should be, "Sure, in principle. But we have to think about some things before we can sign off on this." Those things cannot be based on the content of the demonstration or speech.
3. Officials cannot ask people to move, reschedule, or cancel an event based on what the demonstrators are going to say. 
4. Schools have to give a "reasonable" alternative location if they deny the original request, but there is no real definition for reasonable. Demonstrators will probably think the alternative is worse, but the organization will say it is a reasonable alternative, which will create conflict. Courts can decide what is reasonable.
5. The speaking groups may have to pay for extra security fees, like police overtime pay, if they can pay them, and if the costs are figured out by the organization or city in advance fairly, meaning they don't make it too expensive to demonstrate. 
6. If the group cannot pay, then the university has to eat the costs. 
7. Officials can arrest a speaker for "inciting imminent lawless action," but not threats of violence.
8. The crowd can shout down the speaker.
9. The police can intervene if there is violence, with the first action being arresting the lawbreakers. They can only shut down the whole event if they are overwhelmed by the violence, though. If the speaker resists, the police can arrest them as well as lawbreakers. 

Blog Post 1.5 - "What Happened (With the Voters)?"

1. Neither candidate was very popular compared to past candidates. They were by far the number one and number two most disliked candidates. 
2. Jill Stein with the Green Party and Gary Johnson with the Libertarian Party both tripled their votes from 2012. This resulted in both Trump and Clinton falling short of fifty percent in more than a few states. 
3. Clinton did convince many people that Trump was unfit for the Presidency, but that did not result in more votes for her. It meant that Trump got fewer votes, but these people instead voted for third-party candidates rather than Clinton, ultimately hurting her. 
4. Romney received 59% of the white vote in 2012, whereas Trump won 58%.
5. Clinton did much worse than Obama in every nonwhite group, although she still won all of them. She dropped 5% among black men, 2% among black women, 2% among Latino men, 7% among Latino women, and 5% among all others. 
6. College graduates typically voted for Clinton at 52% versus Trump at 42%. 
7. Both parties nominated someone who was well-known but incredibly unpopular and disliked. 
8. Trump did slightly worse with white voters than Romney, and performed just as well with Latino and black voters.
9. Clinton did not broadly appeal to women voters, and she in fact did worse among noncollege white women than Obama. 

Blog Post 1.4 - "Why People Don't Vote"

1. 58.6% of Americans voted in the 2012 election, but 84% of registered voters cast a ballot.
2. A lot of times, people just forget to register until after the deadline has passed; other times, people cannot register at all because of certain registration requirements or prohibitions on people like felons. 
3. Many people say they either are not interested in voting, disliked the candidates, or did not care about voting at all. They simply do not think their vote matters. 
4. Families shape how people will view voting in the future. Affluent families tend to instill an idea that voting is expected - a responsibility - and that it can make a difference. Other people often instead get the sense that politics is dirty and that they do not matter.
5. The sheer amount of elections can fatigue voters and make it easy to slip into a habit of not voting at all. 
6. Parties tend to focus on bringing out the vote in populations that will probably support their party, and they do not focus on bringing out the vote in populations that may vote unpredictably. 
7. Oregon is allowing voting by mail to increase voter turnout. 
8. Elections that are like festivals would probably increase voter turnout and cement cultural norms around voting. 
9. Mandatory voting laws suggest to the people that voting is expected, which is normally enough without resorting to harsh punishments. 

Blog Post 1.3 - "Trump & DACA"

1. Trump was under pressure to make a decision about DACA before Monday because a group of Republicans were going to sue over its constitutionality that day.
2. DREAM was intended to benefit children who crossed into the U.S. illegally with their parents by providing them with a path to citizenship. 
3. DACA gave a temporary grant of protection from deportation and a permit to work legally. These protections last for two years, but they can be renewed. 
4. DACA recipients have to have come to the U.S. before 2007, been 15 or younger when they arrrived, and younger than 31 when DACA was created in June 2012. They also had to have a nearly spotless criminal record and either be enrolled in high school or have a high school diploma or equivalent. They also had to apply. 
5. DREAM was a moderate alternative to legalizing all 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat. 
6. Unauthorized immigrants are likely to grow up in low-income houses and cannot apply for federal financial aid. Also, an unauthorized status can dissuade people from following their educational dreams
7. Learning that one is illegal can lead to kids envisioning their lives like their parents. They do not think it is possible for an illegal immigrant to succeed, so they adjust their expectations, often leading to decreased motivation. 
8. Since these children are born in the United States, they are United States citizens - but their parents still aren't.
9. The program allowed illegal immigrants to apply for protection from deportation rather than relying on ICE agents to decline to deport these "low-priority" undocumented immigrants. Successful applicants apply for a commitment from the federal government for "deferred action," and they also get a work permit. Although it does not provide a path to becoming legal residents or citizens, they can do things like get a driver's license. 
10. DACA receivers have gone further educationally and economically than other illegal immigrants. Annual earnings increased by 80%. They were more commonly employed, and careers have been opened up, providing more opportunities than previously. 
11. States are suing to wind down DACA, claiming it is unconstitutional. 
12. People who have already applied will have their applications processed, but no new applications are accepted after Tuesday. Those currently under the program will continue to be protected until their permits and protections expire. If they expire before March 5, they will have one month to apply for one last renewal; anyone else will simply return to being unauthorized. 
13. Many DACA recipients can now be easily tracked down; others will have to leave their jobs or will no longer be able to apply for financial aid. This all makes it much easier to track down DACA recipients, who provided extensive personal records to the government for the program. 

Blog Post 1.2 - "Local Govts & Devolution"

1. Trump supporters want to crack down on sanctuary cities, since they think cities should cooperate with federal immigration policy,C whereas sanctuary city residents see their cities as necessary to fight against aggressive anti-illegal-immigration policies that they disagree with and voted against.
2. Chesterton means local control of economic and political decisions. This meant local control of government, opposition to imperialism, criticism of big business and monopolies, and patriotism. 
3. Typically, conservatives favor devolution, whereas liberals view it with suspicion.
4. Liberals have started to advocate for devolution of power to cities rather than states, since they hold the most power in urban areas. Giving more power to the cities allows progressives to attempt policies that could not be implemented at a national or even state level due to their lack of support outside of progressive groups. 
5. Local areas have very different views on abortion, and attempting to provide one federal ruling on it leads to the local areas that disagree with it basing their entire political agenda on this one issue because of the fundamental disagreement on abortion's morality, leading to gridlock on that issue and little involvement with others. Whereas morality dictates that if something is right, it is right everywhere, politics dictates that something can be wrong in one place and right in another. 
6. Certain federal statutes and rulings already give certain powers to the federal government which would need to be given to the states. Also, basic institutions such as the electoral college or the shape of the states are not likely to change, which tend toward gridlock, polarization, and presidential empowerment. Basically, there are already too many powers given to the federal government that supersede local policies. 
7. The people in conservative states would push back if certain policies were changed, such as a reduction in Social Security or a removal of pollution regulation, as these people rely on these policies for success in various ways. In addition, if people did not support local policies, they would just move somewhere where they agree with local decisions.
8. People will be happier, since their locality will have policies that represent their values, but it will also force people to come up with more realistic policies once the more extreme proposals have been attempted and failed.
9. Conservatives have to support progressive areas' right to self-governance even if they disagree with their policies, because otherwise they will not truly be supporting the devolution of powers and will appear to be hypocrites when it comes to other issues. 
10. It means that you might be personally horrified by the choices of other localities, but because of the principle of self-governance you cannot do anything about it. This can be painful when policies contradict your morals.
11. The same problems that were apparent under the Articles of Confederation, probably. The United States would devolve into a collection of loosely-connected governments that refused to cooperate, only furthering the divide, but along less defined borders, since blue urban areas will reside within red states. Local areas will get policies they agree with, to be sure, but that does not preclude conflicts with other localities in other areas, specifically in economic or political ways. 

Blog Post 1.1 - "Interest Groups - ACLU"

1. The ACLU advocates for first amendment rights, specifically the right to free speech, regardless of what the content of this speech. 
2. The ACLU came to the legal defense of Jason Kessler, one of the organizers of the rally last weekend, when the city of Charlottesville attempted to revoke his protest permit. The ACLU felt that this violated his first amendment rights, especially since the counter-protesters still held their permit. 
3. Liberals tend to back the ACLU because of its vow to hold Trump's administration legally accountable for its actions following his inauguration. 
4. The ACLU says that it is important to protect free speech for everyone because it prevents the government from choosing to suppress whatever it disagrees with. Decades ago, the government sought to prevent the public protest of civil rights activists, and protecting first amendment rights regardless of the speech itself is necessary to preclude this happening to speech that is necessary for positive social change similar to that of previous years. 
5. The article raises concerns that allowing free speech for these groups would legitimize their views, letting them grow stronger and spread their ideology. Eventually, these groups may call for a restriction of free speech, and the public will let them do it. 
6. The first instance was when the KKK wanted to rally in Skokie, Illinois. The town was mostly Jewish, and the town and lower courts tried to stop the event from happening. The ACLU, however, defended the KKK's first amendment rights to rally. Luckily, the KKK did not go to Skokie.
7. The ACLU itself disagrees with Yiannopoulos's views, but since they contend it is his first amendment right to speak them they have to defend them. Some people say that his language is so hateful and is placed in a context of an accepting world that it reaches the level of incitement, if not a higher level of criminality. Although his speech is awful to just about everybody, the ACLU still fights for his right to say it, which can be seen as harmful to the groups Yiannopoulos attacks.