Jill Stein is the nominee of the Green Party, a left-wing party focusing on environmentalism, grassroots democracy, and social justice. Stein, from Chicago, attended Harvard Medical School and practiced internal medicine in Massachusetts for 25 years. She has run for Governor of Massachusetts, the House of Representatives, other local Massachusetts offices, and was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2012. She has served as a Town of Lexington Town Meeting Representative, but has lost her other bids for public office.

Where does Jill Stein stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Jill Stein calls for an economic solution that alleviates economic inequality while simultaneously working toward a greener economy. She calls for such initiatives as a $15 minimum wage, job creation by urging the clean energy industry forward, and democratizing banks, the federal reserve, and public utilities.

Gun Rights and Control:

Stein advocates improving community mental health resources, ending the culture of drug violence, and legalizing marijuana as mechanisms to reduce gun violence. She is in favor of increased local regulation and background checks.

Healthcare:

Jill Stein hopes to replace the Affordable Care Act by extending Medicare to everybody with a single payer public health program. In Stein’s platform, she also advocates lowering the cost of prescription drugs, expanding access to contraceptives and abortion, and enhancing community health resources.

Immigration:

Stein hopes to establish a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, supports the DREAM act and deferred action for immigrants, and condemns the deportation of law-abiding undocumented immigrants.

Privacy and National Security:

In her platform, Stein expresses dedication to personal security and privacy. She supports the deauthorization of Guantanamo Bay, termination of the executive power to indefinitely imprison citizens, and other top-heavy gestures of national security. Stein also supports the repeal of the Patriot Act.

What are Jill Stein’s priorities?

Jill Stein places high priority on addressing climate change, an unfair economy that caters to corporations and the rich, and social injustice. Her platform consists of 12 points; transitioning to a green economy, establishing jobs, education, and health care as rights, ending poverty, creating a just economy, fostering racial justice, protecting mother earth, freedom and equality, justice, peace and human rights, and empowering the people.

How is Jill Stein polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Jill Stein is currently polling at 2 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Jill Stein? appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Gary Johnson is the nominee of the Libertarian Party, a party that places heavy emphasis on fiscal conservatism, limited government, and civil liberties. After studying political science at the University of New Mexico, Johnson founded Big J Enterprises. The construction contracting business became a lucrative success before he sold it in 1999. Johnson ran for Governor of New Mexico in 1994, won, and held that office from 1995-2003. During his tenure, Johnson drastically cut the size of the state government, lowered taxes, favored privatization of services like prisons and Medicaid, and was known for frequently exercising veto power. Johnson was also the Libertarian Party nominee in 2012.

Where does he stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Many of Gary Johnson’s high-priority proposals have to do with Libertarian revisions to the economy. Johnson wants to end the corporate income tax to draw companies and jobs to the U.S., introduce a single consumption tax, and cut government spending by at least 20 percent.   

Immigration:

According to Johnson’s platform, he believes that making it easier for immigrants to legally obtain work visas and enter the U.S. will create a safer national environment. Johnson opposes an increase in border security and building a border wall.

Gun Rights and Control:

Johnson strongly defends gun ownership and wants to seek provisions to make it more difficult for individuals suspected of terrorism and mentally ill individuals to obtain guns.

Health Care:

Gary Johnson favors the repeal of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for privatized healthcare based on free market principles. Johnson has expressed intentions to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid. He also supports the right for a woman to have an abortion.

Privacy and National Security:

In line with Libertarian Party ideology, Johnson is in fierce defense of personal privacy. He has expressed intention to dismantle the National Security Agency (NSA) if elected. In his book, “Seven Principles of Good Government,” Johnson also expressed that the Patriot Act should be repealed. His platform expresses fierce opposition to foreign military intervention.

What are Gary Johnson’s priorities?

Gary Johnson places strong emphasis on civil liberties, government downsizing, and the private, laissez-faire economic strategy. His platform consists of 13 points: wasteful spending, taxes, job creation, civil liberties, internet freedom, abortion, immigration, the war on drugs, criminal justice reform, education, foreign policy and national defense, creation of term limits and the environment.

Who is Gary Johnson’s vice president pick?

William “Bill” Weld, like Gary Johnson is a former Libertarian-Republican governor. Weld has served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and as Governor of Massachusetts from (1991-1997). He was also nominated as Ambassador to Mexico, ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1996, and was a candidate for Governor of New York in 2005. While Governor of Massachusetts, Weld had a similar track record to Johnson. He cut taxes, pursued the elimination of state employees and privatization of human services, and drastically reduced state spending.

How is Gary Johnson polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Gary Johnson is currently polling at 6 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Gary Johnson? appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe received fierce opposition from Virginia republicans when he released an executive order in late April to restore voting rights to over 200,000 ex-felons. McAuliffe’s opponents argued that he was overstepping his restoration powers in his capacity as governor and that he only had the power to restore voting rights on a case-by-case basis. On July 22, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he had indeed overstepped his constitutional powers in a 4-3 decision, shooting down his blanket restoration move. 

When he first took up the fight to restore voting rights for released felons, McAuliffe—who has historically been engaged in national democratic politics as former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign—was criticized for using restoration as a political tool. With one in five adult African-Americans being disenfranchised in Virginia, republican opponents argued that McAuliffe was trying to “unlock” the minority vote in the wake of the 2016 presidential election.

McAuliffe starkly denies this. Rather, he claims that any citizen who has completed the full term of their sentence shouldn’t be disenfranchised. McAuliffe aims to relieve some of the ex-felons’ burden by restoring voting rights, as disenfranchisement is one of the most significant collateral consequences facing prison releasees.

While the Howell v. McAuliffe decision is certainly a setback, McAuliffe isn’t done with his battle for voting rights quite yet. In a statement released following the July 22 decision McAuliffe promised that he will still pursue restoration. The governor will individually sign 13,000 restoration orders this month and will not stop signing restoration orders until all affected individuals reclaim their right to vote.

Virginia is one of less than ten states that still disenfranchises felons who have completed all terms of their sentence, and is one of less than five states where over 20 percent of African-American adults are disenfranchised. Thus felon disenfranchisement—in addition to the disproportionate incarceration of African-Americans—has the innately undemocratic effect of suppressing minority votes and minority voices.

McAuliffe holds that his action is unpartisan, that he is acting to alleviate the intense injustices that have plagued Virginia’s past. He holds that voting rights ensure certain citizens aren’t being unfairly targeted and excluded from the democratic process.

During his tenure, McAuliffe has championed many issues of inequality. Such instances include initiating preschool programs in impoverished schools/communities, vetoing multiple pieces of legislation aiming to restrict abortion access, and more. The closing sentiment of his statement on the voting rights case sums up the progressive governor’s spirit: “The struggle for civil rights has always been a long and difficult one, but the fight goes on.”

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia Governor Wages Fierce Fight for Voting Rights appeared first on Law Street.

With today’s constant access to news and commentary on law, policy, and legislation, voters expect candidates to be “policy wonks.” Bernie Sanders was commended during his presidential bid for his strong socio-economic policy reform proposals. Speaker Paul Ryan is lauded for squeezing out a laborious policy plan while a loud presidential election overshadows congressional action. Yet somehow Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, is running a nearly policy-free campaign.

Now, let’s give this a fair appraisal; Donald Trump has seven published platform points. This pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s 32 published platform points. Trump has even published less than libertarian candidate Gary Johnson’s 13 points.

While this might be excusable if his policy proposals were comprehensive and diligently crafted, they are not. Point for point, Donald Trump offers contradictory opinions, fosters disdain for Obama-era policies without offering alternatives, and proposes costly measures without revenue-building measures to offset them. Here are two of the most jarringly unrefined “policies”:

Immigration Reform/The Wall

While Donald Trump claims that his infamous wall along the Mexican-U.S. border will cost $8 billion, construction economists estimate that it will cost at least $25 billion, not including maintenance and surveillance.

Though this won’t be a superfluous expense because Trump promises that Mexico will pay for it. Trump proposes banning undocumented immigrants from being able to wire money to Mexico (an estimated $24 billion per year.) He will then tell Mexico that in order to resume wire payments, that it has to pay for the wall.

However there are two jarring flaws in this plan. Firstly, individuals wiring money to Mexico are not funding the government, but rather family still living in Mexico. Secondly, Mexico–a deeply fragile state currently–would not prioritize $24 billion in diffused money to families over a $25+ billion state-funded project.

Though this isn’t Trump’s only strikingly expensive proposal without a funding plan. Trump also proposes we triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, each with an annual salary of $30,000-$50,000.

Many of Trump’s immigration reform tactics are rooted in isolationist sentiments and labor practices, disguised as job creation. He proposes a temporary bar on granting green cards to force employers to hire authorized citizens, expresses persistent anti-trade sentiments, and falsely cites illegal immigrants as a large source of unemployment for authorized citizens.

To be clear, according to Pew Research unauthorized immigrants only comprise about 5.1 percent of the workforce and work predominantly in occupations like farming, maintenance, and construction. Even if these were widely desirable and growing occupations in the U.S.–which they are not–authorized citizens reclaiming these jobs would not significantly revitalize the middle class as Trump claims it could.

Healthcare Reform

Donald Trump’s ideas on healthcare are some of his most un-established and contradictory. The system which Trump describes is most similar to a single-payer healthcare system. Trump ensures that everybody will have insurance and that the government will pay for it. However he also promises a large, competitive private market.

Above all else, he promises the repeal of Obamacare. However, consider that the Affordable Care Act, a comprehensive multi-thousand page bill, extends healthcare coverage to more than 12 million people. Trump’s healthcare platform contrarily offers little more than supporting the sale 0f health insurance across state lines, support for health savings accounts, and a move to block-granting Medicaid to states.

He also suggests that those who cannot afford private health insurance plans should enroll in Medicaid. However, presently a family of four must make an average of $20-$35k to qualify. Further, in many states income alone doesn’t qualify a family.

Trump would have to support Medicaid expansion to bridge the gap between the current low income Medicaid threshold and the income level families who would strain to afford private insurance. This is contrary to his proposition to block-grant the program to states.

Trump acts as though by scapegoating immigrants and Obama-era policy, he can ignore how glaringly debt-inducing his proposals are. Holding executive power inevitably means holding vision for your party and country. It means planning to renovate, innovate, spend, and save all in future-minded consciousness. Ending each of your thoughts with “Make America Great Again” doesn’t invoke greatness from your policies, vision, or lack thereof.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sorry Trump, but “Make America Great Again” Isn’t a Platform appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last July, the Obama Administration selected 67 colleges to participate in an experimental pilot program through the Department of Education (DOE) to extend Pell Grants to certain incarcerated individuals. The experimental program will impact up to 12,000 inmates working to earn a post-secondary degree. 141 correctional institutions will take part in the Second Chance Pell Grant program. 

This monumental move in criminal justice policy marks the first time inmates will be eligible for Pell Grants in over 20 years, when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 explicitly banned grants to any incarcerated individuals. Though that bill is still in place, the new pilot program is granted through experimentation under the Higher Education Act.

As for the grants, they function in the same way as grants for non-incarcerated students. Federal Pell Grants are available to students seeking a college degree with demonstrated financial need. The grant is proportional to the student’s income with a maximum amount of $5,815 for the 2016-2017 academic year.

The initiative follows a slew of research in recent years showing that educational rehabilitation for inmates sharply decreases recidivism, increases social capital, and aids re-entry into society. One such 2013 study found that individuals who participated in correctional education were 43 percent less likely to recidivate in the three years after release than individuals who didn’t participate in education. Further, the program serves individuals marked for release within the next five years, the demographic educational programming will benefit most.

But the program has been met with some public disapproval, largely because some believe that confronting the student debt epidemic in the U.S. and extending grant programs for traditional students should receive higher priority than funding education for incarcerated students.

Nevertheless, the DOE has made their priorities and intentions clear with regards to the intersection of criminal justice and education. In a report released this month, the DOE pointed out that in the last 25 years average spending on PK-12 education has increased around 100 percent, whereas correctional spending has increased around 300 percent. That figure is even higher in states like Texas, where correctional spending has increased by 850 percent during the same time period. 

Investing in education is a cost effective method for reducing crime. The DOE report points to a study which found that a 10 percent increase in high school graduation rates could result in an approximately nine percent decrease in arrest rates leading to drastically fewer inmates and prison costs.

As a snapshot example, it cost the city of New York an average $167,731 for each inmate held in a correctional institution in 2013. By reducing arrests and thus incarceration, correctional institutions can re-allocate greater funds towards rehabilitative services like vocational training and higher education aided by Pell Grants.

For now, the Pell Grant extension to inmates is experimental, but marks an important shift away toward rehabilitative approach to inmates within the U.S. criminal justice system. A grant program that was created to allow students to go to college who otherwise could not has a clear purpose in correctional institutions where inmates may have their only chance to pursue a college degree.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration to Extend Pell Grants to 12,000 Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, Hillary Clinton released a technology and innovation policy platform with a myriad of initiatives to expand internet accessibility, support STEM entrepreneurs, and more. The brief is full of bold ideas to revitalize the American economy through the outlet of technological innovation and proposes initiatives like deferring student loans for periods of 3 years for young entrepreneurs and expanding broadband internet access to every American household by 2020.

This is in stark contrast to Donald Trump who only has seven published platform points, none of which focus on technology and only one—tax reform—which really discusses American economy. In fact, some of Trump’s only comments on the topic of technology  have been calling to “close up parts of the internet.”

#DonaldTrump advocates closing up the Internet 2 stop the process of thought/free speech. So Communist China-like. pic.twitter.com/hRab3xpVcK

— NotBuffytheVMPslayer (@NotBUFFY_VS) December 8, 2015

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2014

This paired with his opposition to net neutrality has pretty clearly put tech and open-internet advocates in Clinton’s court.

Hillary Clinton’s plan for innovation and technology is more than a favorable political contrast; it is a comprehensive plan for expanding technology, internet access and quality, and the culture of innovation in the U.S.

The plan consists of five core points;

• Investing in technology to create jobs
• Investing in digital infrastructure
• Advancing America’s global technology leadership
• Promoting innovation while protecting privacy
• Engineering a more innovative government

Within these points are many specific proposals that tech advocates are fawning over such as defending net neutrality, engaging the private sector to create 50,000 computer science educators, and expanding internet access to more public places.

Despite having so many specific policy proposals, Clinton’s plan retains an overarching message to appeal to all voters; technology should not be exclusive but should act as an equalizer to allow anybody to become an entrepreneur and innovator.

The plan invests equally in industry and communities through proposals like offering loan forgiveness up to $17,500 to entrepreneurs who start businesses in “distressed areas,” improving copyright and patent systems, and offering grants to cities to expand low cost, high quality internet.

Though the plan is more far-reaching than a defense of net neutrality and goals to extend computer science education, it truly is a full economic policy agenda with initiatives to create jobs, reduce college debt, closing corporate loopholes and more. The fact that Hillary Clinton’s avenue to achieve these goals is technological innovation is emblematic of her commitment to the future and to opportunity.

While the plan has been met with some skepticism that Clinton is pandering to Silicon Valley-ites and concerns that the plan is too far-reaching to be achieved without a completely cooperative Congress abound, the plan is at the least evidence that Hillary Clinton and her team have a fantastic understanding of creating complex, cohesive policy that promotes progressive economic goals.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary Clinton Releases Tech Agenda Aiming to Equalize the Internet appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

So what are DACA/DAPA?

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is an initiative launched in 2012 as an act of prosecutorial discretion by president Obama. The order allows undocumented immigrants who move to the United States before the age of 16 to seek temporary relief from deportation given they meet criteria for age, arrival time, criminal record, and schooling.

The expansion of DACA (or DACA+) was authorized by President Obama in 2014 that eliminates certain arrival timeline requirements, the age ceiling, and extends relief period from two years to three years.

DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) is also an initiative launched in 2014 that would allow parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to seek temporary relief from deportation and apply for work permits.

These executive actions were intended to allow deportation officials to focus on illegal immigrants who engage in criminal behavior and thus threaten public safety, while allowing other immigrants who do not have legal status but have vested interests in the United States (for example, if they spent their childhood here or  have a child who is a citizen) to stay for a temporary period.

How did the lawsuit begin?

The lawsuit came to fruition when 26 states sued the federal government claiming that DAPA/DACA+ violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not allowing a notice-and-comment period during rulemaking.

When the states took the case to district court in February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting further action on DAPA/DACA+ indefinitely. In November 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order to grant a preliminary injunction. The federal government filed a petition for certiorari later that month and the Supreme Court decided to take up the case in January. The Supreme Court also decided to consider whether DAPA/DACA+ violated the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution.

Check out this article to read more about the case’s background.

What does today’s tie mean?

The deadlocked ruling in United States v. Texas affirms Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to block the president’s executive actions. Today’s ruling amounted to just one sentence: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” As a result, as many as five million undocumented immigrants will no longer be protected from deportation

Because the court did not actually decide on the case but rather affirmed the affirmation of an indefinite suspension of a program, the future of DAPA/DACA+ is obviously ambiguous. Immigration advocates find it unfair that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit would be able to determine immigration policy for the whole country. Some also speculate that another group of states will sue in favor of the actions, which could create a split between appellate courts while the Supreme Court remains deadlocked in a tie.

If the decision remains through the 2016 election, the future of DAPA/DACA+ and immigration policy will be decided by the next president or it may require a ninth Supreme Court justice to break the tie.

You can read the (very brief) opinion here.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Split Blocks Obama’s Immigration Actions appeared first on Law Street.

When word broke Monday that Donald Trump’s campaign was essentially broke, having raised only $1.3 million to Hillary Clinton’s $42 million at the end of May, Twitter quickly reacted with the trending hashtag  #TrumpSoPoor.

The hashtag taunts the presumptive Republican nominee who prides himself on funding his own campaign because he’s “REALLY RICH!” 

Trump better hope that rich mindset of his can pay for his future campaign expenses. In the meantime, Twitter is fiercely chiming in with #TrumpSoPoor to point out the irony of Trump’s shrinking pockets.

#TrumpSoPoor He’ll have to start paying taxes

— Jocelyn Plums (@FilthyRichmond) June 21, 2016

#TrumpSoPoor even his fact check bounced

— Andrew Tumilty (@AndrewTumilty) June 21, 2016

One user called out GOP public assistance resentment.

#TrumpsSoPoor the @GOP is making him take a drug test before they give him any financial assistance.

— Raoul_Duke (@RaoulDuke99) June 21, 2016

#TrumpSoPoor he’s applying for public housing pic.twitter.com/D24IETllKk

— etymology of hip (@indianainsomnia) June 21, 2016

Another speculated Trump’s racist comments were taken from Ted Nugent, who has plenty to spare.

#TrumpsSoPoor He gotta borrow his racism from Ted Nugent.

— (((Crash Thompson))) (@TehRockCritic) June 21, 2016

Don’t think they forgot about that time Trump started a for-profit college that targeted poor people.

#TrumpSoPoor he’s being targeted by Trump University as a potential student.

— Bethany Albertson (@AlbertsonB2) June 21, 2016

Trump already wants Mexico to pay for his wall, but why not his campaign too.

#TrumpSoPoor he’s going to ask Mexico to pay for his campaign.

— BWD (@theonlyadult) June 21, 2016

#TrumpSoPoor he’s the first male politician in history to get less money than a woman working in the same position.

— (((Charles Clymer))) (@cmclymer) June 21, 2016

Needless to say, Donald Trump obviously doesn’t know what experiencing poverty is like, and the hashtag has received criticism for playing on the pain that vulnerable people face.

#TrumpSoPoor liberals made a hashtag so they could make fun of all the things actual poor people have go through everyday & not feel guilty.

— D (@Delo_Taylor) June 21, 2016

But #TrumpSoPoor is not about making fun of poverty and the problems poor people face, rather it is shooting sarcasm at a presidential candidate who has boosted himself repetitively as self-made and rich (as though these are the very best qualifications for the leader of a country.) This sarcasm is pointed at the self-aggrandizing candidate of a party.

Further, let’s not forget Trump was never poor or even struggling because 20 percent of his campaign expenditures are funneled back into Trump businesses. Trump is taking “self-funded campaign” to a whole new level because this campaign is clearly funding himself. While this could become an unsuccessful campaign due to failures to prioritize expenditures such as ad time, which will become necessary in the general election, Trump and his businesses are doing just fine.

Don’t worry about the state of Trump’s campaign fund though, Trump sent out his first fundraising email Tuesday, promising within that it would be “the most successful introductory fundraising email in modern political history.” Hopefully its success can beat the monumental introductory fundraising emails of ancient political history. 

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #TrumpSoPoor that He Can’t Afford to Defend Himself on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. tends to follow an apathetic cycle when it comes to gun control; a mass shooting occurs, Republican politicians blame it on terrorism or mental illness, or anything other than gun control, and Democrats blame it on weak gun control. Gun control legislation is brought up, not passed, and another mass shooting happens.

A week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, with 49 people murdered at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando and days after Senator Chris Murphy’s (D-Connecticut) 15 hour gun control filibuster, the Senate will vote tonight on four gun control proposals. 

The Murphy amendment, proposed by Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut)

The Murphy amendment features the largest expansion of present gun control rules by closing the “gun show loophole” and requiring private gun show sales to enforce background checks. The amendment also seeks to expand The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS), the background check database used for gun sales.

The Grassley amendment, proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

The Grassley amendment seeks to improve the NICS to notify law enforcement if somebody who has been investigated for terrorism by the FBI within the last five years attempts to buy a gun. The amendment also seeks to clarify language and documentation on mental health that would bar some from obtaining guns.

The Feinstein amendment, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California)

Also known as the “no fly, no buy” amendment, Feinstein’s proposal would allow the attorney general to deny gun sales with “reasonable belief” that the buyer is connected to terrorism. This lower standard than “probable cause” extends beyond the “no-fly” watch list.

The Cornyn amendment, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)

The Cornyn amendment allows up to a 72-hour wait period for individuals on terrorism watch lists who attempt to buy guns. This amendment is supported by the NRA.

The Democratic priority at this point is to close background check loopholes included in sales at gun shows, online sales, and more, the Cornyn and Grassley amendments have been chastised as not doing nearly enough. Further, the focus on barring individuals suspected of terrorism from buying guns is important but, frankly, does not address the problem behind the remarkably high number of mass shootings in the U.S.

In fact, of the 18 largest mass shootings in U.S. history (each having 10 or more fatalities), only 3  had expected terrorist connections: the Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Fort Hood shooting, and the San Bernardino shooting. These shooters were all self-radicalized and the FBI couldn’t find any connection between them and international terrorist regimes. Further, most recent American mass shooters obtained their guns legally with passed background checks, despite half of them having criminal histories or turbulent mental health backgrounds.

So far we have yet to see legislation that proposes a solution to the “typical” mass shooter in the U.S.: a person working independently due to feelings of anger, vengefulness, and unstable emotions or mental health reform on a larger scale.

The Grassley and Feinstein amendments are more or less misled in their focus on the “terrorism gap,” which hasn’t proven to be prevalent in the U.S. and essentially panders to public fears. The Cornyn amendment offers essentially no solution—does a 72 hour waiting period really work? The Murphy amendment offers imperative safeguards against people who shouldn’t be able to obtain a gun, but, with the NRA and gun rights playing such a pervasive role in Republican politics, will the GOP vote in the public interest?

The Senate vote for these four amendments is scheduled for 5:30 P.M. on Monday.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will U.S. Gun Control Strife End with Monday’s Senate Vote? appeared first on Law Street.

After years of debate, California Governor Jerry Brown has finally given in to liberal legislators and advocates of the poor by eliminating a California welfare rule that many believe inordinately targets poor mothers of color. The rule goes by many names–the “Welfare Queen” rule, the family cap, and formally in California as the Maximum Family Grant Policy–and prevents families from receiving more benefits if they have additional children while receiving benefits.

California’s revocation of the policy is projected to cost the state a projected $220 million each year, and will eventually be funded by an account for inflationary increases to welfare benefits. With Brown’s decision, California joins a list of seven other states to repeal the rule, which once existed in some form or another in nearly half of U.S. states.

The rule is a byproduct of the criminalization of welfare recipients that began in part with Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign rhetoric:

Reagan ran a campaign largely based on the anecdotal evidence of a few criminals who defrauded the U.S. welfare system, with the conclusion that welfare fraud was a pervasive plague in the U.S. that could only be eliminated by cracking down on the “welfare state.”

The stereotype of the “welfare queen” has persisted as a woman, usually black, on welfare who persistently has children, does not work, and lies to receive greater handouts.

“Welfare queen” rules emerged in the early 1990’s as a solution, with the belief that if women were to not receive additional benefits for additional children, that they would stop having additional children. Not only have studies found that the rules have no distinguishable impact on birth rates among mothers who receive benefits and are subject to a family cap, but the rules have been criticized as degrading and dehumanizing to poor mothers.

Opponents have long held that children shouldn’t be penalized just because they were born into a poor family, while advocates of the policy claim that the estimated additional $130 families will be receiving will not be enough to lift families out of poverty. But ultimately, California legislators decided that the policy was ineffective in its goals, perpetuated unfair stereotypes, and punished children in deep poverty for elements out of their control.

However, this is just a first step to de-constructing the “welfare queen” image, which is unfairly projected on poor mothers.

There are still many other states with family cap rules. Additionally, public perception of mothers and families on welfare is often flawed. For example, pervasive myths such as welfare recipients buying alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food with SNAP benefits are simply untrue. SNAP benefits only apply to non-ready-to-eat food items with small exceptions for eligible disabled, homeless, or elderly recipients who can purchase select restaurant items in a few states.

Similarly, one of the most common welfare recipient stereotypes is the lazy non-working adult who is on welfare for years without ever working. Contrarily, 20 states have work requirements for TANF (the program for cash welfare assistance) recipients, including California.

The myth that most people using welfare stay on it for years also isn’t true. Many areas only allow single adults to receive SNAP for three months while unemployed, and many places have a lifetime limit on how long an individual can receive welfare benefits–California’s is 48 months.

California and many other states have a long way to go in deconstructing the harmful stereotypes of poor mothers and families they have perpetuated. But California has shown that the first step is possible, and that strong legislatures and citizens prioritize the livelihood, dignity, and opportunity of poor communities.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fall of the “Welfare Queen” in California appeared first on Law Street.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in favor of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations to ensure an open internet in the U.S. In the wake of this latest victory for web activists and advocates of net neutrality, here are four things to consider as we move forward:

1. Your internet access won’t change, but it could get worse.

The FCC has been operating under stronger regulations from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) since February 2015–ISPs are now considered public utilities. However, if these regulations were not in place, ISPs would be allowed to manipulate the flow of the internet.

Debate on net neutrality focused on whether it was fair for ISPs to prioritize certain content providers who could pay more, and slow traffic to other content providers. What this meant for the average internet user was potentially higher buffering times on streaming services like Netflix and slower traffic to websites with lower priority. Yikes.

2. AT&T, lover of monopolies and telecommunications, is back at it again

AT&T has been one of the most vocal opponents of the reclassification of ISPs as telecommunication services and the government regulation that accompanies that reclassification. AT&T, among other opponents, claims that this intervention will lead to less innovation and investment.

In reaction to the ruling, AT&T Senior Executive VP David McAtee released a statement claiming, “We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal.”

But we’ve already seen U.S. v. AT&T in the 1970’s when AT&T was found to be breaking anti-trust laws in its monopolization of local telephone service in the U.S. And then there was the time the company tried to buy T-Mobile but abandoned the effort after a lawsuit was brought by the DOJ’s antitrust division.

Maybe AT&T just doesn’t understand that the U.S. government and its citizens have decided that we oppose the predatory business practices that are made possible with monopolies. But in case nobody has told them; no AT&T, you can’t keep trying to re-monopolize one of the most important services in the world.

3. We still have a long way to go to ensure an open, public internet service

Internet being considered a public utility is a big step. However, while we rejoice in our ability to binge-watch “Game of Thrones” at equal speeds, individuals living in rural and poor communities still face limited internet access.

Internet use in rural areas is at 78 percent, compared to 84 percent in urban and suburban areas. However, not all internet is equal. Oftentimes in rural areas, especially in parts of the south and western U.S., internet is offered at higher prices and lower speeds.

The dialogue around internet use also often disregards the inevitable fact that for poor families, buying computers that can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and is not a priority, and often is not possible. The internet cannot truly be considered an open, free, and public service until we address the high prices and differences in speed and quality of internet faced by rural and poor communities throughout the U.S.

4. Don’t be surprised if you see net neutrality in the Supreme Court

In case the comment from AT&T’s David McAtee didn’t tip you off, it is widely suspected that net neutrality will find itself in the Supreme Court soon as AT&T and other providers have expressed intention of appealing the case.

The D.C. Court of Appeals found no merit to the arguments of ISPs in the case decided on Tuesday. Further, the issue has already been looked at in part by SCOTUS. In 2005, SCOTUS decided National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services by essentially saying that since the legislation in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was ambiguous, the FCC got to decide how to classify internet service (as a telecommunications service or an information service). The FCC clearly has since decided to classify internet as a telecommunications service. Nevertheless, expect to see net neutrality top headlines in a Supreme Court appeal soon.

But until then, we celebrate this win as one step close in a battle for universal access to the internet, the largest, most empowering, and most accessible information database in the world.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Court Upholds Net Neutrality: 4 Things You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

It is no large secret that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has had a tumultuous relationship with the issues of poverty and welfare: referring to the “culture problem” of “inner cities,” claiming America is divided into “makers” and “takers,” and making more controversial statements within the last few years.

But following a speech in March 2016 where he apologized for the hateful rhetoric, poverty has become one of his premier issues, especially as he revealed the first part of the House Republican policy brief A Better Way on Tuesday.

The 35-page brief has a simple and not particularly harmful premise; by embracing community-oriented solutions, encouraging work, and customizing welfare services, more individuals in poverty will be able to achieve social mobility. However, in these 35 pages, Ryan offers few policy solutions, poor research, and repackages Republican cut-back proposals under the guise of being “good” for impoverished people in America.

While the proposal includes what is expected of a House Republican brief on poverty–cutting and consolidating welfare programs, blocking grants to states, and tightening work requirements for welfare recipients–the sheer lack of quality research and policy proposals is underwhelming.

Though Ryan has no problem citing sources and statistics on such imperative topics as whether or not Americans believe welfare recipients should have to work, the brief states–without statistics or sources–that “recent data suggests many (SNAP recipients) are not working or preparing for work” and that “recent reports from independent government watchdogs reveal that welfare benefits are often paid to people who are not eligible.”

Poor research aside, let us not forget that House Republicans abhor bureaucracy, but only when it’s inconvenient to their goals. The brief relies heavily on the Work Participation Rate (WPR) as the measurement of TANF success. This is innately unsuccessful because it doesn’t differentiate between states with low WPRs and states where social service workers do not accurately and attentively track WPR. Thus, Ryan’s recommendation to require states to “engage TANF recipients in work” is largely a move to better document and regulate work involvement, despite persistent anti-bureaucracy sentiments throughout the brief.  

While this may be one of the most jarring contradictions Ryan offers, rest assured that it is not the only one. In a paragraph on strengthening higher education, he criticizes the strict academic-year timeline Pell Grant recipients are forced to take and proceeds to call the Pell Grant program unsustainable due to expansion.

Despite Ryan’s vague language, his attempts to criticize efforts such as the fiduciary rule–a Department of Labor proposal which would require retirement advisers to prioritize their clients’ best interests over profit–as well as the CFPB’s regulation of payday loans which have historically placed impoverished people in long-term debt traps, are quickly revealed as partisan interests snuck into a brief on “opportunity” for impoverished people in America.

In a more holistic way, the entirety of this brief is contradictory. Ryan espouses at one point that “this ‘spend more’ approach invests taxpayer dollars in bureaucratic programs without addressing the root cause of poverty.” However, in the brief, Ryan never assesses the root cause of poverty; to do so would invalidate his proposals to cut programs that help vulnerable people receive food and housing, and meet other basic human needs.

Ryan does seem to acknowledge that poverty extends beyond income poverty–that poverty is a culmination of societal forces suppressing social mobility. He is misled, though, in suggesting that services and work requirements can replace financial assistance. Strong community services and work enforcements alone do not feed people, do not pay the rent for their apartments, and to deny cash assistance is to be in denial of what poverty comes down to: not having the money and bargaining power in society to protect and empower oneself.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Ode to Paul Ryan’s Anti-Poverty Brief Mishap appeared first on Law Street.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed new rules June 2, marking the federal government’s first attempt to regulate the predatory practices of payday loan lenders. The regulations will curb certain high interest payday, auto-title, and other small loans that feature outrageous fees and interest rates and leave borrowers in long term debt.

With approximately one in 20 Americans taking out payday loans each year, the multi-billion dollar industry has faced heavy criticism for creating a profit-oriented system where borrowers cannot pay off loans and are forced to re-borrow.

According the CFPB data, 80 percent of payday loan borrowers take out more than one loan, 45 percent take out four or more, and about 15 percent take out 10 or more. So, more than one out of 10 “short-term” loan borrowers are in debt for over four months.

Under the new rules, payday loan officials and other lenders will have to incorporate a full-payment test to ensure borrowers will be able to repay the loan or installment payments on time, while also fulfilling other financial responsibilities and basic needs.

Further, the rules limit payday lenders’ ability to debit borrowers’ accounts without giving them written notice–an imperative move when 50 percent of online borrowers had a failed debit attempt or overdrafted their account in the past 18 months. These failed debit attempts lead to overdraft fees, and more than one third of borrowers with a failed payment are in jeopardy of losing their account.

The last major limit imposed on payday lenders requires a cool-off period after borrowers take out three consecutive payday loans. This is a devastating blow to payday lenders who collect 75 percent of their loan fees from borrowers who take out more than 10 loans in a year.

The CFPB rules are intended to reduce the circumstances in which payday loans can lead to exhaustive debt. However, the rules face criticism from payday loan lenders, because they limit a necessary business for many people who cannot access traditional lines of credit due to bad credit history, lack of a dependable checking account, and other reasons. While this criticism is to be expected, the regulations have also received skepticism from consumer advocates claiming that the rules are not expansive enough.

The Center for Responsible Lending points out that numerous loopholes will allow payday lenders to still trap borrowers in debt. Primarily, the full-payment test is only required for individuals taking out more than $500. However, as demonstrated in a former Law Street piece, a loan with the average principal of $325, if renewed eight times (or over the course of four months) would cost the borrower $798–1.5 times the initial loan.

While the new CFPB rules mark an important step in limiting the predatory nature of payday loans, which rely primarily on poor and vulnerable people who lack the bargaining power to reject 400+ percent interest rates on loans, the rules are not without flaw. By setting too high of a threshold for certain rules, the CFPB allows a large portion of the payday loan business to continue unfazed.

Regulations need to provide protection for all borrowers who enter a loan agreement where the lender has coercive power. As it currently stands, the CFPB’s rules are not expansive enough to make a real dent, and they fail to propose an alternative to payday loans, which are the only option for many customers.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Regulations Limit Predatory Payday Loan Lenders appeared first on Law Street.