Science and Technology - A Bill Not Heard

Many today were let down as Congress came to a close early. Among those bills that not addressed was the Economic Investment and Job Recovery Act, drafted by the committee of Science and Technology.

            The Economic Investment and Job Recovery Act aimed to provide stability and incentive for venture capital start-up businesses. The bill claims that it will do this by “creating greater financial flexibility and security in critical early years” by “maximiz[ing] potential profit during the first five years of business”, and by “creat[ing] jobs for small business entrepreneurs, and increase[ing] the likelihood for the continuation of their operations”.

The Committee then says that technological innovation will increase by up to 22% and that it will create stability for up to 14.5 million new jobs over the next 15 years.

This seems exciting and promising until on the very next line the bill specifically says, “The Economic Investment and Job Recovery Act eliminates financial challenges for start-up ISP businesses.”

            The way that it was going to do this was by providing the new hardware and resource access that would have otherwise been unavailable and by insuring equal access to existing Local-Loop infrastructure by reducing start-up costs for new ISPs.

            It also promises that larger companies will not be able to buy ‘faster speeds’ to improve its own competitiveness above the new businesses.

            Huge tax breaks and deductibles are offered to these new ISPs and there is even additional funding as a function of every American citizen hired by the business so long as they are paid over the poverty line.

            The further I read the more this seems to benefit only a small population of people. The bill is unclear in its language regarding who will be receiving these benefits, small businesses in general or only Internet Service Providers? Small businesses (such as the type that usually pop up) only need to be able to access the Internet.

            I find it hard to believe that there would be so many new ISPs popping up that it would make such a difference in jobs, or a difference in anything for that matter. For Internet Service Providers people tend to choose companies and businesses that have been in business for a while, companies that their friends recommend, companies that are going to last. You try a new restaurant or store that opens, not a new Internet provider.

            In a day where just about everyone has Internet, it is not a contract that you change lightly.

            I believe that had this bill gone to congress other pressing issues would have come up. Such as, ‘What if people begin to start up these businesses as a way to get money for the government, and then close them after 5 years?’ There could potentially be some serious consequences for people who buy in to these businesses.

            If they get so many tax breaks, and deductibles, and low cost (sometimes free) services for starting up an ISP, what sort of crooked person wouldn’t want to start one? Charge a competitive price, make money from innocent people just trying to get Internet, and then duck out after 5 years. These people are potentially low income households who are trying to save money and think that by getting with one of these companies they can get a better deal. The people who will be working for these companies must also be considered. “Over the poverty line” could mean just barely.

            In an ideal World filled with good, honest people, this bill has many great ideas to help out start up businesses. Sadly, however, ours is no one of those Worlds.

            Overall, the committee needs to look over some of the provisions they are suggesting and some amendments would probably need to be made before this bill could have been passed.

Business does need to be created in order to stir the economy, but this bill is too vague to really understand how it intends to do that by only providing for ISPs.

 

 

-Lauren Bowers, Political Analyst, The Bellringer

Planning by Environmental Committees

The following is an interview with Jason Leitner, chairman of the Liberty Bells Environment committee. The interview took place several days before the bill was proposed to the congressional body. Judging by the reactions of the congressional body to the presentation, it seems Mr. Leitner may have had too much confidence in the committee's bill!

PURDY: "What types of changes are you making, and why?"

LEITNER: "We have basically come up with a "Clean Air Act" of 2010 bill. It changes current laws regarding ethanol in fuels. It also includes our version of the Cap and Trade bill which is before the Senate right now."

PURDY: "What is your bill going to deal with, and what is the main goal of the problem you are trying to fix?"
LEITNER: "The first part of our bill deals with reducing ethanol in current fuel because that is raising world wide prices of corn. We will be proposing a new algae based fuel to replace it. The second part of our bill will be implementing Cap and Trade on Corporate pollution. Unlike the bill in crongress, our Cap and Trade does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions or tax individual energy expenditure."

PURDY: "What ideas did you have, and what plan did you actually go with, and why?"

LEITNER: "Most of our ideas we wanted to pursue are addressed in the bill. We tried to work as a team instead of separately as parties and it worked out pretty good for us."

PURDY: "How do you plan on getting the bill passed?"

LEITNER: "Our bill will pass based on the fact that the changes it proposes are are necessary and will benificial to everyone."

PURDY: "What sort of issues did you face in deciding which bill to push?"
LEITNER: "We talked about what issues we wanted to be in our bill and we decided to put our main ideas listed above into one bill and split up the work for everyone versus having lone crusaders go off and write their own bills."

PURDY: "What do you think the other party's views on the bill will be?"
LEITNER: "Most of our bill will be accepted by both parties. The only issue may be with the Bald Eagles not liking the fact that the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is not regulated in our Cap and Trade."

PURDY: "What points do you feel may be the weak points of your bill?"

LEITNER: "Have you even read it? Our bill has no weak points!"

The chairman of the Environment Committee of the opposing party, the Bald Eagles, was not as thorough or cooperative in his responses to the same questions. He stated that the committee's main goal in creating the bill was to increase technologies in order to promote environmental sustainability. The group feels that research firms do not currently take enough initiative to create this technology. The main weakness of the proposition was a lack of planning for the budget.

-Leah Purdy, Political Analyst, The Bellringers

Smart Grid is Efficient, but Spending is Not

March 31, 2010 - The Committee on Energy & Commerce presented today, showing strong and unyielding support for nuclear power and Smart Grid technology. A short summary of the bill is as follows, the new Energy Bill states that the United States will convert the majority of its power to clean, nuclear energy and implement Smart Grid technology to make energy distribution more efficient. The problem with this plan, though, is that is requests that 170 Billion dollars be invested into the project to redesign the infrastructure of the United States power grid system.

Now, in this current time of economic hardship and our government running a multi-trillion dollar deficit this committee wishes to put ourselves in more debt for "cleaner" energy? What happened to the push for renewable energy or clean-coal energy? Those options are much cheaper than replacing the majority of coal/fossil fuel power plants with all new state-of-the-art nuclear reactors. Don't get me wrong, I am all for nuclear power, it is a "Clean" energy in comparison to coal power, but it is costly and the most important issues in the United States today are not those pertaining to energy, but those pertaining to managing the National Budget/Deficit and focusing on economic recovery. Part of managing the deficit and better managing government funds is by reducing government spending overall, spending a projected (not finalized amount mind you) 170 billion dollars on an energy reform is not at the top of America's list of things we need to do right now.

The Committee on Energy & Commerce presented today, showing strong and unyielding support for nuclear power and Smart Grid technology. A short summary of the bill is as follows, the new Energy Bill states that the United States will convert the majority of its power to clean, nuclear energy and implement Smart Grid technology to make energy distribution more efficient. The problem with this plan, though, is that is requests that 170 Billion dollars be invested into the project to redesign the infrastructure of the United States power grid system.

Now, in this current time of economic hardship and our government running a multi-trillion dollar deficit this committee wishes to put ourselves in more debt for "cleaner" energy? What happened to the push for renewable energy or clean-coal energy? Those options are much cheaper than replacing the majority of coal/fossil fuel power plants with all new state-of-the-art nuclear reactors. Don't get me wrong, I am all for nuclear power, it is a "Clean" energy in comparison to coal power, but it is costly and the most important issues in the United States today are not those pertaining to energy, but those pertaining to managing the National Budget/Deficit and focusing on economic recovery. Part of managing the deficit and better managing government funds is by reducing government spending overall, spending a projected (not finalized amount mind you) 170 billion dollars on an energy reform is not at the top of America's list of things we need to do right now.

I can understand the push for cleaner energy sources and more efficient distribution and use of power but I cannot understand why such a major reform would be necessary as of right now rather than going the cheaper route and retrofitting coal and fossil fuel power plants with technologies to make them "clean". I fully agree the Smart Grid technology could be easily implemented into the United States electrical grid and that the Smart Grid is necessary as a means reducing the price at which every American citizen pays for electricity and increases the efficient use of energy, but what I cannot agree upon is the price at which the American people as well as the U.S. Government will pay for it's funding. Where will that money come from? Donations from electrical Corporations? Possibly, but more than likely we can expect to see increased taxes upon the already staggeringly increased taxes Obama has introduced during his first year in office. The question again becomes one of necessity, why commit to energy reform now? Why not wait until the United States gets its feet back underneath itself economically and then move forward from there rather than bleed the U.S. Government for more money it does not have?

Overall, I think this bill has a long way to go before it can be fully considered passable, creating a more realistic budget, cutting down the time it takes to actually complete the switch over and Smart Grid and assuring that this bill would and is the best decision and solution for efficient and economical energy for every American.

- James Hendrix; Political Analyst; The Bellringer

Interview with Melissa Hopkins (Budget Chairman)

1- What type of bill are you making, and why?

We created a budget bill that will enact a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) policy where spending increases in one area must be offset by decreases in another area so that a budget deficit is never incurred in a given year. Also, we have provisions addressing redistributing funding after defense spending drops off which it is predicted to do soon and others dealing with social security and medicare spending. The overall goal is to add surplus funds each year to a 'rainy day' fund which can be used to decrease the national debt and fund unexpected expenses.

2- What is the main problem that you are addressing? What is the goal of the bill (as far ass addressing this problem)?

The main problem is the huge national debt that needs to be decreased, which the bill addresses. In addition, the bill addresses the need of seniors to have a secure retirement which is sustainable.

3- What was you thought process/ justification for your bill?

This bill is justified because spending needs to be closely monitored which this bill calls for and the national debt will simply grow to an even more astronomical amount if left unchecked.

4- How do you propose to enforce your bill? What steps will you take in changing from present conditions?

This bill will be enforced within each committee. The committees are responsible for ensuring that their existing policies follow PAYGO and will be checked by the budget committee to ensure compliance. Any new policy not following PAYGO may pass in Congress but will be essentially useless since none of the provisions will take place until the policy does follow PAYGO. The main change is that there will be harsher punishment for not following PAYGO which will hold Congressman more accountable for the national budget.

5- What issues did you face within your committee as far as debate between parties and members, and how was this compromised?

There were some issues of disagreement and unless a compromise could be reached, those issues were left out altogether to retain hope of the bill passing in Congress as a whole. One major issue was whether or not to cap military spending during peacetime to a certain percentage of the GDP and if so, what percentage. After discussion and a vote in the committee, this issue was left out of the final bill.

6- How did your bill begin? What were your initial ideas, and how did you mold these into a workable bill?

The budget bill began almost twice as long as the final product and included many ideas to balance the budget, decrease the national debt, secure social security and medicare, deal with spending during war and peacetime, and redistributing spending once defense spending decreases. Many ideas were cut from the final bill because we felt that the issue they addressed was out of the budget committee's jurisdiction. Other ideas were left out because of the lack of agreement within the committee on the idea or because the idea was believed too controversial and risked causing the bill to fail in Congress.

7- If it comes down to it on the floor, how do you plan on compromising or modifying your bill?

This wasn't an issue that we discussed in committee. This does not mean that this issue will not come up, but we believe that we have eliminated ideas that are too controversial to pass and have put forth ideas that have bipartisan support for the most part.

--Kirstyn Smith, Political Analyst,The Bellringer

Reforming the Farm Bill

Today in congress debate ensued over the Farm Bill. The Bill aimed to reduce the enormous amount of subsidies that the large farming corporations are currently receiving. They want to instead only give subsidies to the smaller farms in amounts of no more than $5,000.

By doing this they believe that the imbalance between large and small scale farmers will be remedied.

However, important issues regarding this bill were brought up in congress that really shook the ground, causing the Bill to fall short by only 6 votes.

Research says that 200 years ago 86% of Americans were farmers as compared to less than 4% today. With population growing like it has, one would think that there would be more, right? The answer to that question lies in how apparently non-profitable and uneconomical it is to actually be a farmer. Which is why the subsidies exist in the first place.
Part of the issue is that the large farms all produce the same stuff: corn, rice, soy, and grain and feed for cattle and pig. These farms then produce more, and compete with each other, driving the prices down. Seems like a good thing? These cheap prices mean that the farmers make little to nothing on their products, and then NEED the subsidy to make up for it. Smaller farms can't compete with that, they simply cannot offer at the same prices because the volume of production is so vastly different.

So now we have a market flooded with products made from these cheap, highly subsidized, crops. High fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated fats made from soybeans... these ingredients can make for very cheap, prepackaged, unhealthy snacks and foods. Farmers who produce healthy fruits and vegetables are not subsidized as heavily and so the gap between healthy and unhealthy foods continues to grow. Consumers of lower income are offered little choice but to stock up and buy the less nutritious foods.

If 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese, is it not clear that we have plenty of food? Health problems ensue from over consuming the WRONG foods.

But will this Bill really fix that?

Ideally, the subsidy cuts will cause the large farms to produce less (because the only reason they over produce is to get the subsidy...). Less production means higher demand which means higher prices. These higher prices will then be competing with the higher prices that the smaller farms have to charge. Eventually a carton of beautifully ripe strawberries will be the same as a box of Twinkies and all of America will be fit and healthy. In an ideal World.

In actuality, companies that produce the artificially sweetened, fatty, preservative filled foods will simply begin to import their high fructose corn syrup and soybean made hydrogenated fat from other countries that will seize the opportunity. Perhaps nothing would change except for the extinction of all farms in America since the government would no longer be supporting them (after all, $5,000 is really such a small number). A carton of fresh, organic strawberries will still cost $6 dollars and those delicious Twinkies will still cost me only $3.

-Lauren Bowers, Political Analyst, The Bellringer

Transportation Committee Falls Short on Potential Goldmine

March 31st, 2010 - The expectations were high. The tone was set by the Committee on Natural Resources' endearing plan for decreasing the greenhouse gases in America. Even as the Transportation Committee began the presentation of their bill to a hard and heavily budget-minded group of Congressmen, the prospect of improving the nation's worst transportation problems in years seemed to be a stone's throw away.

The idea seemed simple enough. Urban highway congestion is the arguably the largest problem currently facing our somewhat somber nation. So to fix it, let's add new highways around major metropolitan areas (in addition to the current ones, of course) so that commuters have more options as to how they choose to get around. It really does sound simple. So simple in fact, why haven't lawmakers already inacted such ideas? The answer of course isn't hard to find, actually.

With Obama's newest transportation budget plan, money has been allocated to solving these problems. The problem occurs when you consider the amount of people who have switched from driving to work to public transportation or carpooling. The major reason for the change (although lawmaker's would love for you to believe otherwise) is the economy. Sure, I know, it sounds cliche. But it is true. In the current state of the union economically, people just don't have the money to fuel their cars anymore, and are thus finding other means of transportation. So you have to wonder, if all these new highways are built, and the economy picks up (because we all know it has to eventually, right?), then consider all the people who will switch back to driving themselves and away from public transit and carpooling. Oops, we're right back where we started, and furthermore, we just killed millions, maybe billions, of trees for practically no reason. This can't be good for the previously mentioned Committee on Natural Resources' plan for drastically reducing greenhouse gases.

The issue that perhaps stemmed the most lengthy part of the debate over the bill, however, was not the proposed congestion reduction plan. It was actually the idea of installing a sort of automated toll road system to help fund for new highways and research. (It sure is interesting to me that the most heated part of the Congressional debates has revolved around under-budgetting and the argument that the Committees have not been appropriating enough funds. Interesting, considering this session of Congress is majority Bald Eagle party. Hmm...) Perhaps it was the ambiguity surrounding the toll system, or maybe it was the misunderstanding of the audience it was being presented to, but either way, it turned out to be a highly debated point. Personally, I find the idea fairly decent, the Committee just didn't have the best plan for implementing it. The proposed amendment to have the toll road transmitter installed by auto dealers is a great idea. Sure, it doesn't allow for people driving unregistered vehicles, but do we really want them on the road anyway?

The Committee used Atlanta as an example of how the new highways could be implemented and used. Although they were headed in the right direction, I personally feel as if they should have analyzed a bit more where the new highways would be more beneficial. For instance, parts of southwest and southeast Atlanta would not need as much extra highway as many of the northern suburbs. Also, their claims that their plan would be more fuel efficient was a bit of the mark. Yes, it is true, a lot of fuel is wasted just sitting in traffic everyday. But to claim that making a wider and more lengthy perimeter highway would be more fuel efficient just doesn't quite add up.

This bill had potential, and I mean real potential. It had a great plan for decreasing urban congestion all while staying within a national budget. It even had ways to raise money to support the future budget of the plan. However, no actual numbers were written, and it is apparent that the Committee is a bit unsure of how much their plan will actually cost. The bill was good on paper, and perhaps would get more votes had it stayed that way. I guess this goes to show why setting a national standard for almost anything can be so expensive.


Christopher Tuten, Political Analyst, The Bellringer Daily

Congress Convenes: Focusing on the Issues

March 29th, 2010 - Congress met today and brought many bills and issues to the floor for presentation and debate. The Committee on the Environment brought up much heated debate when their discussion about ethanol frontiers and it's incorporation into petroleum and farming industries as well and severe criticism for their lack of budget planning. The Committee on Budget presented several ways to reduce government spending which according to the committee would have a significant impact on the current national budget deficit. One issue proposed by the Budget Committee was getting rid of Medicare and Social Security which would appropriate more money to be directed to alleviating the deficit. The Committee on Energy and Commerce brought their bill to the floor with a strong stance on pro-Nuclear power and Smart Grid technology incorporation in the United States Energy infrastructure in the very near future (~2012/2013) and full integration by 2030. Despite high costs, the long term savings in energy and environmental impacts would more than compensate for the costs of the energy project according to the Committee. These committees' proposals are quite radical and given the debate and voter tallying, quite polarizing. It seems that there is much revision and discussion to be had before any of these bills plan on making it into law. As for the rest of the bill propositions for this convening, they will have to wait until the next session which will hopefully be more productive.

- James Hendrix; Political Analyst