In mid-April, protesters in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir clashed with Indian soldiers, leaving at least eight dead and more than 200 injured. This came in the wake of elections held in Kashmir that saw only 7 percent turnout, the lowest in 27 years. That record was quickly broken in a re-scheduled election in which only 2 percent of people voted. These are just the latest developments in the conflict over Kashmir between India and Pakistan, which has lasted decades. This conflict is compounded by a number of other issues, such as both countries’ nuclear power status and the involvement of China. Read on to find out more about the Kashmir conflict, its impact on India-Pakistan relations, and how it may eventually be resolved.

Background: A Look at Kashmir

The region of Kashmir has been disputed territory between India and Pakistan since 1947, following British rule and the partition of British India. India, which borders the region to the south, controls the south and southeastern parts called Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan controls the northern and western parts (and since 1962, China has controlled the northeastern portion). The Indian and Pakistani zones are separated by the Line of Control.

Despite being controlled by India, which is predominantly Hindu, half of Jammu and the entirety of Kashmir are majority Muslim areas. Both religions have long roots in the region, with Hinduism dating back to the area’s early history and Islam coming in the 14th century via Muslim conquerors. The area was also intermittently ruled by Afghan Warlords and Sikh princes.

The video below describes how the borders formed over time:

The Conflict

Although Hindus and Muslims had coexisted relatively peacefully for centuries, conflict quickly gripped the area following independence. The origin of the conflict can be traced back to the choice of the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir. At the point of independence, the Maharaja hoped to remain independent, however, he was ultimately forced to choose between joining either India or Pakistan thanks to an armed revolt within the region. Despite ruling over a majority Muslim area, the Hindu Maharajah decided to side with India.

The Maharajah’s decision allowed India to justify sending troops into the region. Originally it was supposed to be a temporary move, with the ultimate goal of holding a local vote to decide who would be in charge. The conflict continued and in 1948 the United Nations got involved at India’s request. The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling on Pakistan to withdraw its forces from Jammu and Kashmir while allowing India to maintain a small military presence. Pakistan refused and the vote that was supposed to determine the fate of Kashmir never took place. But in 1951, elections did proceed in the Indian-controlled portions of Kashmir and Jammu.

Fighting picked up again in the 1960s and 70s, but the first conflict was between China and India in 1962. Chinese forces quickly defeated Indian troops and took control over the region they dubbed Askai Chin. Their territories were separated by the Actual Line of Control, which is different from the similarly named line between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir.

India and Pakistan re-engaged in heavy fighting in 1965 and 1971, following years of unrest in the region. In 1971 the Indian army decisively defeated their Pakistani antagonists. This led to the Simla Agreement that called on both parties to solve matters peacefully and clearly designated the Line of Control. However, in reality, this did not stop the violence. The continuing conflict was carried out by insurgency groups from Pakistan, who flooded into Indian Kashmir to fight against its occupation. There was also the Kargil War of 1999 that nearly led to a nuclear conflict.

Peace Process

The peace process in Kashmir has been ongoing nearly as long as the conflict. There were the ceasefires in 1948 and 1971, however, neither fully stopped the fighting and were largely ineffective. During the 1999 Kargil War and during a period between 2001 and 2002 there were also fears that renewed conflict between India and Pakistan would lead to a nuclear confrontation. Luckily, due to international interference primarily by the United States, the crisis was averted.

More recently, progress was made in what is known as the “composite dialogue,” which began in 2004. This dialogue ultimately ended with the Mumbai bombing in 2008. However, the goals accomplished during the talks, such as a ceasefire at the line of control and passage across the line of control, endured.

Despite this progress, the region once more experienced a surge in violence following the 2008 attack. After a couple years, relations began to improve and in 2012, the President of Pakistan met with the Indian Prime Minister to hold the first high-level talks in nearly eight years. But hope for progress was quickly dashed after India’s decision to execute both the last remaining Mumbai attacker, as well as a Kashmiri convicted in a 2001 attempted bombing of India’s parliament, led to renewed violence.

Line of Control

This situation may also have been exacerbated by the construction of a border fence beginning in 2003. While the numbers suggest the fence has been successful in reducing infiltration by potential militants, it also has its drawbacks. The fence may simply be diverting them to other areas and it is expensive to maintain, as large portions have to be rebuilt after each winter.

Further controversy arose after there were rumors that India planned to build a more solid wall in 2015. Specifically, in 2015, Pakistani officials went to the United Nations and claimed India was planning a 10-meter high, 135-foot wide wall along the entire 197-kilometer border in an effort to make the Line of Control the permanent border in Kashmir (Pakistan does not view the Line of Control as a legitimate border). India denied the claim and the wall never materialized.

India has also installed something known as a “laser wall” in Jammu within Kashmir and along other parts of its border with Pakistan. This technology is able to detect movement and is useful in places where the topography makes it hard to build a physical fence.

Current Situation

The current situation continues to be unstable in light of the recent disputes detailed above. This includes the election chaos from April and protests in May after a militant commander was killed by Indian security forces. There have also been repeated episodes of violence along the Line of Control, along with violence in both countries’ territories. The two sides are also quarreling over the status of an alleged Indian spy whose fate is being decided by the International Court of Justice.

The Region’s Future

Given the persistent conflict, what is the most likely outcome for this region? An article from the BBC details seven possibilities, ranging from variations of India and Pakistan taking over all or part of the region to Kashmir achieving independence. However, for any of these scenarios to take place, one side would need to give up territory, which has become unlikely amid renewed tension.

China, meanwhile, might also have a major role to play in the region’s future. China, whose own claim to Kashmir already played out in a successful war against India, recently signed a $500 million deal with Pakistan. This is just part of a much larger $57 billion deal between the two countries to create a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor in part of China’s even larger One Belt, One Road Initiative. The plan includes rail lines that would run directly through the contested territory. In response, India refused to even send an official delegation to a recent summit in Beijing.

Conclusion

The conflict over Kashmir between India and Pakistan, and China to a much smaller degree, has dragged on for decades and cost tens of thousands of lives. Both sides have legitimate claims to the region. For India, it is simply enforcing the decision of the Maharajah dating back to the 1940s. For Pakistan, it is about incorporating a majority Muslim region into a Muslim nation. Both nations also have significant issues with their adversary’s position–India claims Pakistan seized the areas under its control illegally, while Pakistan states that the Maharajah’s original decision was made under duress and is therefore invalid.

Regardless of the reasoning, the combined populations of India and Pakistan are more than one-fifth of the world’s total, and both countries possess nuclear weapons. Thus, it is imperative that the two sides negotiate some sort of a deal or even agree to a third option where Kashmir is independent. Reaching that agreement has proved elusive and with the involvement of other countries, like China, it may prove even more challenging. The situation in Kashmir is reminiscent of the deadlock between Israel and Palestine and unfortunately shows just as few signs of being remedied in the near future.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kashmir: A Region Divided by Three Nations appeared first on Law Street.

The United States has a variety of policies that are designed to help working parents with the cost of child care, but those policies tend to be particularly complex and do little to help families with little or no income. While potential tweaks and alternatives have been debated for years, many experts are starting to unite around a new vision that could lift millions of children out of poverty and cut deep poverty in half while simplifying and improving benefits for all families, regardless of income.

Read on for an overview of the tax benefits available to families, where they fall short, and how a universal child allowance could work as an alternative.

Child Poverty in the United States

The child poverty rate in the United States is consistently higher than the rate in many other industrialized countries. Similarly, most other large countries provide some sort of universal benefit for all parents to help with the costs of raising a child. While the United States does have policies to help low-income families, the benefits don’t always reach those at the bottom of the income distribution, who are also the ones who need it most.

The chart below shows how child poverty in the United States compares to other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), based on the latest available data for each country.

While the moral case for helping children born into poverty at no fault of their own is certainly compelling, there is also a significant economic case for using government spending to address the issue. In an article published in the Journal of Children and Poverty, four researchers–Harry Holzer, Diane Schanzenbach, Greg Duncan, and Jens Ludwig–sought to quantify the cost of child poverty on the economy. They found that child poverty has large and measurable effects on costs like crime, lost productivity, and additional health spending. In total, child poverty has an estimated societal cost of about $500 billion per year, or about 4 percent of the GDP.

While estimating the exact cost of something like poverty is an inherently challenging thing to do precisely, which Holzer, Schanzenbach, Duncan, and Ludwig readily admit, the authors highlight the range of ways in which poverty can negatively affect society as a whole.

When it comes to fighting poverty, a growing body of research shows that providing cash assistance to families, particularly low-income families, is particularly effective and tends to pay off over a beneficiary’s lifetime. Interventions that provide assistance to very young children are particularly important, which is why many proposals to address poverty include an increase in funds for children under the age of six.

Current Child Benefits

To understand why many have started to think seriously about a universal child allowance, it’s important to look at how current child-related benefits work in the United States. Where there are several policies that seek to help parents, they can be complicated and most come with restrictions. A primary criticism of these policies is several of them actually do little to help those who need the most assistance, namely people with very low or no income.

Complicated Tax Policies

The United States currently has a handful of tax-related policies that seek to help working parents; each policy tends to target parents with different income levels. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) are two that do the most to help families with low incomes. The EITC is a refundable tax credit, meaning that if it lowers a person in a couple’s tax liability to zero, it refunds the rest so recipients get the full value regardless of the amount they owe in taxes.

While the EITC offers a credit to individuals and married couples without children, only those with very low incomes can benefit and the maximum amount is relatively small. That changes significantly for parents, both in terms of income eligibility and the maximum amount available. The average amount for a family with children was $3,186 in 2015 but just $293 for a family without children. The credit is designed to encourage people to work by offering more money for additional income up to a limit and then phasing out at a certain income level. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a helpful interactive that shows how EITC amounts vary at different levels of income based on marital status and number of children.

Another tax credit is the Child Tax Credit, which has an additional component that also makes it refundable. Like the Earned Income Tax Credit, the refundable Child Tax Credit is designed to both encourage work and provide assistance for low-income parents. The CTC also phases out at a much higher level of income, meaning that it benefits a much larger range of people and is not only targeted toward the working poor. However, there is a minimum income level that people need to meet to benefit–people must earn at least $3,000 to qualify for it and they need at least $9,667 in income to get the maximum value. As a result, those with very little or no income are left out.

There are other tax policies that work to offset child care costs for middle and upper-income families while doing little for those with low incomes. The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit allows parents to reduce their income tax liability by $3,000 per child up to a total of $6,000 but is not refundable. Similarly, the employer-provided childcare exclusion allows working parents to set aside up to $5,000 of income for child expenses without having to pay taxes on it. There is also a child exemption, which allows taxpayers to lower their taxable income by about $4,000 for each qualifying child.

While the non-refundable credits don’t really help people with the lowest incomes, it’s important to note that the credits directed toward low-income parents do play an important role in fighting poverty. According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure–which tracks people’s income after tax credits and government programs–the Earned Income Tax Credit and the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit kept nearly 9.2 million people, including 4.2 million children, out of poverty in 2015.

A Universal Child Allowance

In light of the complex nature and limitations of current benefits, a growing number of experts have started to support the idea of a universal child allowance. While the concept of a universal child allowance could take several different forms, the general idea behind it would be to consolidate some or all existing policies into one benefit that is available to all parents, regardless of income. Doing so would expand tax policy to benefit all children and would have a particularly significant impact on those living in poverty. And if set to the right amount, experts believe that a policy could be designed in a way that doesn’t leave families worse off after eliminating existing benefits like the child exemption and child tax credit.

While we don’t yet have a fully fleshed out proposal with all of the details for what a universal child allowance would look like, and the details are important, people have modeled some possible options to give a general idea of what various plans would mean for child poverty. Researchers at The Century Foundation estimated the costs and benefits of several different possible child allowance designs. For example, they project that a $2,500 per child benefit would have brought an additional 5.5 million children out of poverty in 2013. An allowance of $4,000 per child would have brought more than 8 million children out of poverty. Both policies would have decreased the child poverty rate from 18.8 percent to 11.4 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. Both would also dramatically reduce the number of children in deep poverty–children in families living at less than half of the poverty line–dropping that rate by 49 and 65 percent, respectively.

There is a wide range of proposals to develop some sort of universal benefit for children. Notable variations include a simple proposal that would give parents the same amount for every child, a tiered proposal that would give more to children under the age of six and less for children seven to 17, one that would decrease for each additional child, or some sort of combination of those. Alternatively, some argue that we should increase the value and progressiveness of the Child Tax Credit. The Century Foundation mapped several of those alternatives and found that expanding the Child Tax Credit would also reduce child poverty, but not to the same extent that certain universal benefit proposals would.

Proponents of a universal child allowance also argue that it would best be distributed regularly, rather than once a year when a family files its tax return. Ideally, the benefit could be distributed each month to help offset the costs related to raising a child as parents face them. This stability can help low-income parents budget their finances and ensure that children’s basic needs are met all year round.

Conclusion

While it may not be likely that the United States adopts a universal child allowance in the near future, the possibility may be more likely than one might think. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have supported efforts to expand the value of the existing tax credit, and many agree that existing child benefits could be simplified. While making existing policies more available to low-income families would amount to significant reductions in child poverty, a regular benefit available to all parents would go even further.

Child poverty in the United States has been a persistent problem for a long time. Many other advanced countries have adopted some sort of universal benefit for children and that is likely an important reason why child poverty rates in other countries are often lower than in the U.S. If politicians are serious about fighting child poverty, an emerging consensus among researchers suggests that a universal allowance may be the best way to approach the issue.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Universal Child Allowance: A Simple, Effective Way to Reduce Child Poverty? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Millennials were teenagers or young adults when the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression hit, and our lives since have been marked by it. The crisis has been blamed, whether correctly or incorrectly, for everything from our growing student loan debt to our refusal or inability to buy houses. As a result, there’s long been a sense of “never again.” Millennials in particular have expressed a desire for corporate responsibility and to work for ethical companies.

And the American pushback against the 2008 financial crisis has led to an increase in regulations that financial institutions are held to. As a result, there’s been an increased need for compliance officers. It’s one of the fastest-growing fields within financial services, and Boston University School of Law recently launched a Certificate in Financial Services Compliance program to help you get started. The certificate program is housed in the School of Law’s Graduate Program in Banking & Financial Law, the oldest banking LL.M program in the country. Read on to learn more about the need for financial compliance officers and how BU Law could set you up for a rewarding, compelling, and fulfilling career in the field.

Financial Compliance Officers Wanted

Financial compliance officers essentially make sure that the institutions they work for play by the rules, and they’re currently in high demand. It was estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that between 2008-2018 the total number of compliance officers will increase by 31 percent–a notable jump from 260,000 to 341,000. They’re employed by financial services institutions, corporations, and consulting firms. Many companies created new positions and allocated new budgets to account for this increased need. While demand has slowed down somewhat from the initial rush after the financial crisis and subsequent passage of increased regulations, it’s still a field that’s poised to see steady growth for the next few years.

So where do all these new financial compliance officers come from? Lawyers, especially those who have backgrounds that involve experience with regulatory mechanisms like the Dodd-Frank Act, are desirable. And so are other players in the financial sector, especially when they are able to gain that knowledge of regulations, and learn how to guide their institutions in their compliance with them.

It’s Complicated: The Dodd-Frank Act

One of the reasons that financial compliance officers are in such high demand is because of the rise in regulations after the financial crisis. In the 1980s there was a trend of deregulation on the part of the U.S. government when it came to financial institutions. In 2007 and 2008, when the financial crisis began, that deregulation was blamed by some.

So, when the question of “how do we make sure this never happens again” was raised, stronger financial regulations quickly materialized as one of the answers. In 2010 the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act–best known as just the “Dodd-Frank Act”–was passed and signed into law by President Barack Obama. The act massively changed the face of financial regulations in the United States, including attempting to prevent banks from growing so large that they’re deemed “too big to fail.” New regulations wrapped into Dodd-Frank mandated things like how much money certain kinds of banks need to keep in reserve and subjected many of them to stress tests to ensure they could survive another crisis. It created a whole host of new agencies to oversee financial institutions, and reformed many parts of the financial system as a whole.

Put simply: Dodd-Frank created a lot of new rules and tests for banks and financial institutions. According to Thompson Reuters, at one point in 2013, 110 regulatory changes happened each day. Financial compliance officers are tasked with keeping on top of these constant changes, and they need to be up to the task. As James Scott, director of BU Law’s Graduate Program in Banking & Financial Law points out:

Perhaps more important than the growth in the number of compliance personnel required in the area of financial services is the greater demand for professionalism. The scope of substantive knowledge required, as well as the increased breadth of risk management, monitoring and testing, policy drafting and implementation and training of business personnel has resulted in a dramatic rise in the professional stature of financial institution compliance officers.

Why is BU Law the Right Place to Study Financial Services Compliance?

BU Law recently announced a new certificate in financial services compliance; the program will begin with its inaugural class in Fall 2017. Here are some of the benefits:

A World Class Faculty and Program 

BU Law is home to the only financial services LL.M program in the United States that has its own faculty and curriculum. The new certificate is housed within that program. The faculty includes James E. Scott, who has had a long and impressive career working in banking and regulatory law. Scott is the Director of the Banking and Finance Law Program.

Online and Part Time 

The 12-credit program is part time and the classes are partially or completely online, so you don’t have to be in Boston to take advantage of the opportunity. There’s flexibility in the program too–students can complete it in two or four semesters, depending on their schedules. And the classes are offered asynchronously, meaning that a student can complete course work like lectures and assignments according to their own schedules. All of this makes it ideal for a working adult–someone who has a background in law, in financial services, or in a related field–to add to their resume while continuing their career.

Conclusion

Financial compliance officers are in high demand. It’s also a rewarding and challenging job–its growth was spurred on by the financial crisis of 2008 but continues to be a needed role in many companies. Getting a certificate in financial services compliance could be the next step you need to get started–and BU Law offers the perfect fit for someone with a law degree or related experience in the financial services field. Get more information here:

Resources

Primary

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment Projections: 2008-18 News Release

U.S. House of Representatives: Dodd-Frank Act

BU Law: BU Law Launches Certificate in Financial Services Compliance 

Additional

NPR: Corporate Ethics In The Era Of Millennials

Financial Times: The age of the compliance officer arrives

New York Times: Reagan Did It

CNBC: Dodd-Frank Act: CNBC Explains

Quartz/Thomson Reuters: How the rise of modern regulation is changing the finance industry

Boston University School of Law

Boston University School of Law is a top-tier law school with a faculty recognized nationally for exceptional teaching and preeminent scholarship. At BU Law, you can explore virtually any area of the law in 200+ classes and seminars, 21 clinics, externships, and practicums, 21 foreign study opportunities, and 17 dual degrees. You’ll also be part of a supportive, collegial law school community while experiencing the professional, social, and cultural opportunities that the city of Boston has to offer. Boston University School of Law is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Is a Certificate in Financial Services Compliance the Next Step for You? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the powers retained by the President of the United States is the “presidential pardon.” You may also see news coverage of a president “commuting” the sentence of a given offender. Presidential pardons and commutations are an authority granted to the president by the Constitution, and it’s a power that presidents often exercise, especially at the ends of their terms. Read on to learn about presidential pardons and commutations and what exactly the two terms mean.

What are Presidential Pardons? What are Presidential Commutations?

Presidential pardons and commutations are both types of “executive clemency.”

A commutation is when the president cuts short the sentence of an individual who is currently incarcerated in some form. Essentially, a commutation says: “You’ve served enough time for the crime that you’ve committed, I’m going to take away the rest of your sentence.” This does not mean that the person whose sentence is commuted is innocent. The person’s conviction stays on their record, and they’re still subject to certain restrictions known as “civil disabilities”–for example, a felon whose sentence is commuted is still unable to vote in some places, own a gun, or sit on certain kinds of juries.

In contrast, a pardon is given after a person has already served their time, or passed away. According to the Department of Justice, it is given in “recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence.” A pardon does restore the civil disabilities that apply to convicted criminals. Like a commutation, a pardon doesn’t automatically take the person’s crime off their record. A released offender cannot apply for a pardon until at least five years have passed since their release. Pardons can also be granted somewhat preemptively, as President Gerald Ford did when he pardoned President Richard Nixon, which prevents charges from being filed or leads to the dismissal of charges already levied.

Pardons and commutations are by far the most well-known and frequently used forms of executive clemency. There are, however, other types that the president can exercise. One is called a “remission” and relieves the individual of the financial penalties associated with their conviction. Sometimes a remission is given as part of a commutation. Additionally, there’s a “respite,” which is sort of a pause in a sentence, usually given to inmates who are sick.

What Kinds of Crimes can the President Pardon or Commute?

The president can only grant executive clemency for federal crimes, or “offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court.” The president has no ability to pardon or commute crimes that were prosecuted at the state level. The ability to pardon or commute state crimes varies from state to state. In many states, the authority to pardon or commute an offender lies completely with the top executive of the state, namely, that state’s governor. In 20 states, the governor gets to make the decision but each clemency needs the approval of an independent commission. Other states have different processes, including independent boards or commissions.

What Gives the President the Ability to Grant Executive Clemency?

The presidential power to pardon and commute sentences comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. It states that “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” It has been referred to as the president’s only “absolute power.” The Supreme Court has been asked to review this power in the past, and determined on two separate occasions that it has no ability to limit the president’s power to pardon or commute sentences.

How Often do Presidents Pardon or Commute Sentences?

There are only two presidents in the history of the United States that never issued a pardon or commuted a sentence, likely as a result of the fact that they both died relatively quickly after assuming office. President William Henry Harrison died just 32 days into his term and President James Garfield was assassinated just 200 days into his term.

Here’s a breakdown of presidential pardons in the 20th and 21st centuries:

• William McKinley (1897-1901) granted 446 acts of executive clemency
• Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) granted 1099 acts of executive clemency
• William H. Taft (1909-1913 granted 831 acts of executive clemency
• Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) granted 2,827 acts of executive clemency
• Warren G. Harding (1921-1923) granted 773 acts of executive clemency
• Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) granted 1,691 acts of executive clemency
• Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) granted 1,198 acts of executive clemency
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) granted 3,796 acts of executive clemency
• Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) granted 2,044 acts of executive clemency
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) granted 1,157 acts of executive clemency
• John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) granted 575 acts of executive clemency
• Richard Nixon (1969-1974) granted 926 acts of executive clemency
• Gerald Ford (1974-1977) granted 409 acts of executive clemency
• Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) granted 566 acts of executive clemency
• Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) granted 406 acts of executive clemency
• George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) granted 77 acts of executive clemency
• Bill Clinton (1993-2001) granted 459 acts of executive clemency
• George W. Bush (2001-2009) granted 200 acts of executive clemency
• Barack Obama (2009-2017) granted 1,927 acts of executive clemency

It’s important to note that those numbers, when taken at face value, don’t tell you everything you need to know about acts of executive clemency granted by presidents over the last century. While Obama is widely viewed as having given the most acts of executive clemency since Truman, The Pew Research Center notes that he also received significantly more requests than his recent predecessors, and still only granted a small percentage of those requests. These numbers also don’t include mass acts of clemency–both Ford and Carter issued executive orders that forgave men who dodged the draft in the Vietnam War.

While presidents can pardon people or commute sentences at really any time, there’s a tradition of presidents issuing more controversial acts of executive clemency right at the end of their terms. Pardons and other acts of executive clemency tend to be somewhat politically controversial, but they cannot be undone by a president’s predecessor. Waiting until the end of a president’s term to issue pardons instead of, for example, issuing them during an election when the political blowback could affect their party’s nominee, makes logical sense.

Notable Cases of Executive Clemency 

Gerald Ford Pardons Richard Nixon 

Perhaps one of the most famous instances of executive clemency occurred on September 8, 1974, when President Gerald Ford pardoned disgraced former President Richard Nixon. Nixon had resigned after the controversy surrounding the Watergate scandal, and Vice President Gerald Ford–who became VP after Nixon’s first Vice President resigned–succeeded him in August 1974.

Ford’s pardon of Nixon was somewhat unusual in that Nixon wasn’t at that point charged with or convicted of any crimes. While the House of Representatives had dropped its impeachment charges against him when he resigned, he could still be prosecuted in a criminal court for his involvement in the Watergate scandal and the aftermath of the scandal. Ford’s pardon was for any crimes that Nixon had committed, and essentially ensured he could never be prosecuted.

Ford’s move to pardon Nixon was highly controversial. He was accused of having made some sort of deal with Nixon, and the pardon caused his poll numbers to quickly plummet. Ford’s choice to pardon Nixon is widely viewed as one of the major reasons why he lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter.

Other Notable and Controversial Pardons

Another controversial pardon was when Bill Clinton pardoned his younger half-brother, Roger Clinton Jr. Roger Clinton was one of 140 people pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office. He had served a year in prison in the 1980s after being convicted of possessing cocaine.

Jimmy Hoffa, the leader of the Teamsters Union, was serving a 15-year prison sentence for jury tampering and fraud when his sentence was commuted by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Nixon’s pardon came with strings attached, however. Hoffa was not allowed to “engage in direct or indirect management of any labor organization” until 1980.

On December 24, 1992, roughly a month before he left office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other government officials involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

Right before the end of his presidency, in December 2016, President Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning. Manning was serving a 35-year sentence after leaking a number of classified documents.

Conclusion

The ability to grant executive clemency is one of the most exceptional powers that the President of the United States holds. In some ways, it flies contrary to the important system of checks and balances that defines the three branches of our federal government. Because of this, and because of the way that some of our past presidents have elected to exercise it, it’s a controversial power. But as long as it consistently makes its way into the news at the end of presidential terms, it’s important to remember how it works.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Presidential Pardons: How Does Executive Clemency Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Over the years, many states have tried to attach different conditions to public assistance programs for low-income Americans. These conditions include things like work requirements, which limit benefits to people who are currently working or actively pursuing employment, and drug testing, which limits benefits to people who are not currently using illegal drugs. Both of these policies have been in the news lately as Republicans at the state and national level seek to move assistance programs in a more conservative direction.

While many tend to refer to welfare as if it’s a single government program, assistance to low-income Americans generally comes through the tax code and a hodgepodge of programs administered at the state level. While a wide range of tax credits and public programs make up the American safety net, discussions of drug testing and work requirements typically focus on a handful of programs. Read on for an overview of the programs that are typically targeted for these requirements and what recent proposals would mean for them.

Conditions and Public Assistance Programs

Both drug testing and work requirements are important components of the ongoing debate over welfare policy. Many public assistance programs have work requirements built into them due to policy changes in the 1996 welfare reform legislation. And while some efforts to impose drug testing requirements have been blocked by the courts, according to the National Conference for State Legislatures, at least 15 states have passed legislation requiring public assistance applicants or recipients to be drug screened. These conditions have different implications for people based on how they relate to specific forms of public assistance. Here’s a look at four of the most discussed programs:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–previously referred to as food stamps and now known as SNAP–already has some limitations but the debate re-emerged last year as states started reimposing work requirements after getting waivers following the recession. The 1996 welfare reform law placed stringent requirements on able-bodied adults without children. The law only permits these adults to receive benefits for just three months every three years when they are not either employed or in a job training program for at least 20 hours per week. As a result, the vast majority of people who receive SNAP benefits are either employed or have dependent children. While lawmakers at the state level have called for drug testing requirements, federal law currently does not allow it.

In addition to work requirements, several lawmakers have called for limitations to be placed on what people can use SNAP benefits to buy. Proponents of these restrictions argue that people shouldn’t be able to use publicly funded programs to buy things like sugary drinks or expensive food like lobster. But opponents argue that these decisions are best left to individuals, and limitations on what you can buy already exist–for example, SNAP recipients cannot buy alcohol or prepared foods with their benefits. Moreover, they note that such rules may further stigmatize the use of the program, which has been a crucial means of preventing food instability for a large number of Americans.

Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF)

TANF is one of the few antipoverty programs that provides direct cash assistance, rather than in-kind benefits. The TANF program is administered by the states, which are given a federal block grant each year. Because of its funding system, states have a significant amount of control over how the block grant funds are used as well as the conditions that are tied to benefits. As the name suggests, TANF benefits are typically limited to families with children and have a duration limit. All benefits are also tied to work requirements. While states can define exactly who is eligible for assistance, work requirements are part of the underlying law–states face a funding penalty when their TANF work participation rates are below what is defined by federal law.

State-level flexibility has also led many states to implement drug testing requirements for TANF recipients. However, courts have found that states do not have an unlimited authority to require drug screening. A Florida law requiring all TANF recipients to be drug tested was struck down in court because suspicion-less testing requirements amounted to an unconstitutional search. What set Florida’s law apart from similar laws in other states was its breadth–requiring all recipients rather than focusing on those suspected of drug use.

The law was also not cost effective while it was in effect–the state spent more reimbursing people for drug tests than it would have if it had given them benefits without screening. More generally, critics of efforts to attach conditions to public assistance programs tend to cite the unnecessary administrative costs that come with determining a person’s employment and drug use status.

Medicaid

Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans, has been a recent target for both work requirements and drug testing. A recent letter from the Department of Health and Human Services to the states indicated that the Trump Administration would give more flexibility to states to impose work requirements for people in the Medicaid program. Wisconsin plans to take its Medicaid program in an even further conservative direction, imposing drug screening requirements, work requirements, and time limits for those receiving benefits. Under Wisconsin’s proposal, applicants would need to fill out a questionnaire and, based on their responses, could have to undergo drug screening. If they test positive, they will be diverted into a drug treatment program and if they decline treatment they will be denied benefits altogether. As the Trump Administration signals that states will have more control over the administration of Medicaid, we can expect to see additional states propose conservative changes to Medicaid, but legal challenges may be just as likely.

Given the nature of Medicaid and the health care system in general, even some who support work requirements in principle question their use for Medicaid. Because the government requires emergency rooms to provide care to people regardless of their ability to pay for it, work requirements in Medicaid would not have the same effect as they do in programs that could simply cut off all benefits. This would also mean that more costs are shouldered by hospitals, including public hospitals funded in part through tax dollars, which limits the cost-savings related to pushing people unwilling to work off of public programs.

The video below gives a brief overview of how work requirements would work in Medicaid:

Unemployment Insurance

The Unemployment Insurance program has been around since 1935 and seeks to help the recently unemployed manage their expenses as they look for a new job. The program typically provides benefits, about half of an unemployed person’s previous salary up to a limit, for about 26 weeks in most states. The system is funded by employers on behalf of their workers through state and federal taxes. Federal law says that people eligible for Unemployment Insurance must be able to and currently be looking for work while they receive benefits, although states have the ability to define certain eligibility details.

Unemployment Insurance has been a frequent target of drug testing requirements, but a recent regulatory rollback may have inadvertently made it harder for states to place such requirements on beneficiaries. As a part of the effort to remove a number of regulations put in place under the Obama Administration, Republicans used the Congressional Review Act–a law that allows for the expedited removal of recent regulations under a new president–to scrap a Department of Labor rule outlining who could be drug tested for unemployment benefits. The regulation came out of a provision in a 2012 law that allowed states to drug test individuals before receiving unemployment benefits according to federal regulations. When the regulations were finally enacted, Republicans said they were too narrow, limiting people eligible for the tests to those in a small set of occupations. The rationale was to subject people who would need to pass a drug test for a new job to also be subject to the same tests when receiving unemployment benefits. But the law was contingent upon existing federal regulations, and now that Republicans scrapped the rules that existed, states are now unable to require drug testing absent federal regulations. Writing new rules will take some time, and removing an existing regulation makes it considerably more difficult to pass a new one seeking to accomplish the same thing. As a result, some administrative law experts believe that getting rid of the previous rule may actually set back efforts to enact drug testing requirements.

Conclusion

While there is significant disagreement on the extent to which the government should assist the poor and unemployed between the two major political parties, both Republicans and Democrats tend to agree that the government should do something to help those in need. The primary disagreement stems from how much the government is willing to pay and who is eligible for assistance. Drug testing and work requirements are seen by conservatives as a way to reduce eligibility to people who deserve it and cut costs as a result. Critics say that these requirements add more to the cost of administration than they save in withheld benefits. They also argue that placing these requirements can stigmatize the programs and discourage people who need help from seeking it.

It’s also important to realize how different requirements interact with various programs and how certain funding systems make adding conditions easier at the state level. Block grants, like the one used to fund the TANF program, give states the most flexibility to impose requirements on those receiving benefits, while entitlements tend to need a change in federal law.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drug Testing and Work Requirements: Attaching Strings to Public Assistance appeared first on Law Street.

Many of us have received it at one point or another—the dreaded jury summons. You arrive home, collect your mail, and get the letter mandating that you show up at a particular courthouse at a given date and time. Many of us see jury duty as a necessary inconvenience—serving on a jury is part of our civic duties, but it absolutely can be an annoying interruption to our daily lives. And most people think being on a jury is incredibly simple—if you’re selected, it’s your job to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts, evidence, and testimony you’re shown. But what many people don’t realize is that guilt and innocence, as they are currently defined, are far from the only options. There’s one particularly controversial option open to juries that you may have never heard of: jury nullification. Read on to learn about jury nullification, what it is, and why it’s important to the American justice system.

Jury Nullification: A Primer

Jury nullification is essentially when a jury decides to acquit a defendant not because the evidence indicates that they were innocent, but because they disagree with the law or the harshness of the punishment the law mandates. Sometimes this is done to make some sort of political point; sometimes it happens on an individual basis. For example, imagine you have a woman, in a state where medical marijuana is illegal, who has purchased marijuana to give to her sister who has cancer and is suffering from nausea. If the buyer is caught, she could be charged for her crime—in this case, purchasing marijuana. There may be all the evidence in the world to indicate that she did buy the marijuana. In fact, the jury may believe beyond a reasonable doubt—the burden in a criminal case—that she is guilty of purchasing marijuana. But, if the jury believes that purchasing marijuana for medical reasons shouldn’t be against the law, or that the punishment that the woman would receive for purchasing marijuana is unduly harsh, they can still recommend an acquittal. At the most basic level, jury nullification means that a jury has chosen to acquit a defendant, despite believing that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jury nullification is possible in the United States based on a few different principles. For one, if someone is acquitted of a crime, per the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, they cannot be tried again. Jury nullification is also possible because juries cannot be punished for the decisions that they make (although someone who becomes part of a jury with the intent to push jury nullification or in some other way not uphold their duties can technically be prosecuted, however rarely.) But generally speaking, for ethical reasons, juries cannot be punished for the decisions they come to, or the important American principle of being judged by a jury of your peers would simply be moot. Additionally, judges cannot direct a verdict of guilt, the way that they can a verdict of innocence if the evidence doesn’t match the conviction.

It’s difficult to actually quantify the number of acquittals that stem from jury nullification. Juries are never under any sort of obligation to explain why they have come to the decisions that they did—although individual jurors may speak about their opinions, if they so wish. Some researchers have attempted to study the subject, and indicate that jury nullification most likely plays a role in fewer than 10 percent of cases, but there’s no real way to pinpoint exactly which cases were affected by jury nullification.

Shh…

One thing that could contribute to jury nullification’s relative obscurity is that it’s in many ways a well-kept American secret. In fact, most people seemingly don’t know that it’s a possibility, and they almost certainly aren’t told about it while serving on a jury. An 1895 Supreme Court decision, Sparf v. United States, found that jurors aren’t guaranteed any sort of Constitutional right to be told about jury nullification. In many cases, attorneys will actively try to avoid seating jurors who may know about jury nullification by asking roundabout questions along the lines of: “do you have any beliefs that might keep you from making a decision purely on the basis of the law?”

While a juror cannot be punished for an acquittal, people can get in trouble as a consequence of jury nullification. One high-profile instance involved a man named Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor who was an advocate for jury nullification. He was charged with jury tampering in 2011. He used to stand outside of a federal courthouse in Manhattan and hand out pamphlets about jury nullification, brandishing a sign that said “Jury Info.” He didn’t target any particular jurors, rather attempted to hand the pamphlets to anyone who walked by his station. The charges against Heicklen were dismissed in 2012, but the idea that informing people about jury nullification could be tantamount to jury tampering isn’t too far-fetched to imagine.

Specific Cases of Jury Nullification in the United States

Jury nullification has a long history in the United States. In fact, an early and well-known example actually predates the nation. In 1735, a man named John Peter Zenger printed articles that criticized the colonial British government. Zenger lived in the colony of New York, and it was against the law for him to publish anything without governmental approval. As a result of his controversial publications, he was charged with libel. Despite the fact that there was no question about whether or not Zenger had written the articles—he actually presented an affirmative defense in which he admitted that they were his work—the jury acquitted him.

Throughout American history, there have been other notable instances in which jury nullification is believed to have been used. Some were seemingly noble; others were almost certainly not. The Fugitive Slave Act was updated in 1850 to prescribe up to six months in prison for anyone who was found guilty of helping fugitive slaves escape. It’s widely believed that some of the acquittals that came out of that era came from abolitionist jurors essentially practicing jury nullification. On the other hand, there’s also evidence to suggest that jury nullification popped up in the Jim Crow-era south with some amount of frequency, when all-white juries chose not to convict white defendants who were accused of violence against black citizens.

There have also been recent cases of suspected jury nullification involving public figures. Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry was acquitted of 13 out of 14 drug charges, despite overwhelming evidence, including a videotape of Barry smoking crack cocaine. Barry’s lawyers argued that he was entrapped by the federal government. Barry, a longtime civil rights leader, was very beloved in D.C. and it was a popular belief in the nation’s capital at the time that he was targeted for his political stances and his role as one of the nation’s most prominent black elected officials.

Perhaps one of the most well-known suspected cases of jury nullification is O.J. Simpson. Although many of the jurors involved in that decision have come forward to say that they were compelled by the evidence presented by Simpson’s defense attorneys, Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie L. Cochran, was accused of hinting at the concept of jury nullification in his closing argument by the prosecutor in the case, Marcia Clark.

Other suspected jury nullification situations include the cases of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the controversial physician-assisted suicide advocate who killed patients he deemed to be terminally ill; Lorena Bobbitt, the woman who cut her husband’s penis off after she claimed he raped her; and Oliver North, the NSA staff member who claimed responsibility for the sale of some weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair.

While it’s obviously next to impossible to know exactly why juries chose to acquit Barry, Simpson, Kevorkian, Bobbitt, North, and many others, jury nullification was suspected based on the amount of evidence damning the defendants, and the decision on the jury’s part to acquit despite that evidence.

Conclusion

While serving on jury duty may not be the most glamorous of activities, it is often viewed as one of the most noble civic duties each American is beholden to. But, guilt and innocence aren’t always as black and white as they seem on “Law & Order.” In many cases, jurors take moral issue with the convictions they’re asked to participate in. That’s where jury nullification sometimes comes in. While advocates argue that it’s a way for jurors to protest unfair laws, detractors argue that it makes an unfair playing field for those accused of the same crimes, and can sometimes be used for nefarious or heavily biased purposes. But while jury nullification is somewhat of a well-kept secret, it sometimes makes its way in to the spotlight—often in cases that are beholden to the court of public opinion.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is Jury Nullification? appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed “WikiLeaks” coming up in the news a few times lately. Recently, its founder, Julian Assange, saw the Swedish investigation into rape allegations levied against him suspended–although he does still face arrest if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London. And Chelsea Manning, who leaked a massive number of documents to WikiLeaks, was just released from prison after her sentence was commuted by former President Barack Obama.

Wikileaks, which was launched in 2006 with the purpose of providing government and other relevant documents to citizens, has been all over the news since its inception. But what exactly is it, who is its founder, and why do you need to about it? Read on to learn more.

The Origins of WikiLeaks

Wikileaks officially launched in 2006 and the first document was posted in December of that year, but the domain name “WikiLeaks” was registered that October.

WikiLeaks calls itself a “not-for-profit media organization” that seeks to increase transparency worldwide. Despite the similarity in names, there’s no connection between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia. Instead, WikiLeaks is associated with an organization called “Sunshine Press,” which handles some of the private aspects of WikiLeaks’ business.

WikiLeaks states its mission as:

Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure, and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.

Australian Julian Assange is usually attributed as its main founder–although there are many other people, some anonymous, who worked on the project. Also associated with the project was investigative journalist Gavin MacFadyen, Assange’s mentor. He was the director of WikiLeaks. Before his death in 2016, MacFadyen founded the Julian Assange Legal Defense Committee. Sarah Harrison, a British journalist and researcher, has also been publicly identified as one of the organization’s associates. She’s best known for aiding Edward Snowden’s trip out of the U.S. after he leaked a trove of classified documents. Many of the other people associated with WikiLeaks are anonymous, but the organization claims that they include “accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians, and others.”

How Does WikiLeaks Operate?

The organization is somewhat secretive in how it operates. But it is currently funded by donors and has no one permanent location or office. It has servers in multiple countries and claims it does so to protect the organization in case one country decides to crack down on its operations. In 2016, Assange told Der Spiegel that the organization had posted over 10 million documents in 10 years. According to WikiLeaks, it is sent documents anonymously through email or other anonymous electronic means, and then those documents are vetted and uploaded–although it is important to note that there has been significant criticism about the veracity of some of those documents. WikiLeaks has occasionally worked with media organizations, including Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and The New York Times, although its relationships with some of those organizations have fluctuated over the years.

WikiLeaks and Well Known Whistleblowers

Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning is one of the most widely-known names associated with WikiLeaks. Manning, a U.S. soldier then known as Pte First Class Bradley Manning, sent more than 720,000 secret documents to WikiLeaks in 2010. At the time, she was working as an intelligence analyst. One of the most notable things included in this leak was video footage of a U.S. helicopter firing on and killing Iraqi citizens and journalists in 2007. She also leaked State Department cables, information related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and data about the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Manning was convicted of 20 charges associated with this leak, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. President Barack Obama commuted most of Manning’s sentence before he left office. When she was released in May 2017, she had spent seven years in prison. Manning’s sentence was controversial; many claimed it was too harsh, including advocates for whistleblower protections, transparency, and some human rights groups like Amnesty International. Others claimed that the punishment fit the crime. President Donald Trump, for instance, has called Manning an “ungrateful TRAITOR.”

Manning’s punishment was complicated by the fact that she is a transwoman who was confined in a men’s prison. Manning’s difficulty transitioning while incarcerated was made public, and her struggles to obtain that care worried human rights advocates.

The video below discusses Chelsea Manning’s case in more detail:

Edward Snowden 

Perhaps the most recognizable whistleblower in the world is Edward Snowden. Snowden worked for the CIA and then for well-known government consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. In 2013, he leaked hundreds of thousands of documents that, among other things, revealed the NSA’s surveillance of American citizens as well as information about British surveillance programs.

Snowden did not release this information to WikiLeaks, instead, he gave the documents to media sources. According to Snowden, the only two who were given the full array of documents were Glenn Greenwald, who worked for The Guardian and Laura Poitras, who later made “Citizenfour,” the award-winning documentary about Snowden. However, in the aftermath of the leaks, Snowden was aided by WikiLeaks-associated individuals. After Snowden fled the United States, Sarah Harrison helped him get set up in Russia and avoid American detection. WikiLeaks also submitted asylum requests to multiple countries on Snowden’s behalf.

Since 2013, Snowden has been loosely associated with WikiLeaks at other times. At various points, Snowden has weighed in on the accuracy of documents leaked by the organization. For example, in March 2017, Snowden publicly said that he believed the documents related to CIA hacking techniques released by WikiLeaks were true.

But, Snowden has also been critical of WikiLeaks. In July 2016, Snowden criticized WikiLeaks for not curating the information it released, instead just indiscriminately posting documents related to the U.S. election. In response, WikiLeaks accused Snowden of trying to curry favor with the then-front-runner in the election, Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks Controversy and Criticisms

There are lots of criticisms consistently levied against WikiLeaks and the people associated with it. Here are some of the most prevalent:

Julian Assange’s Legal Troubles

Julian Assange has spent the last five years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange was accused of sexual assault by two women in Stockholm, Sweden in 2010. Assange claims that the sexual encounters with the two women were both consensual and that they were only accusing him of assault because of political reasons. In 2012, Assange sought asylum from Ecuador and was granted the ability to stay in the country’s embassy in London. While Sweden recently announced that it was no longer seeking his arrest, he still isn’t likely to leave the embassy any time soon. U.K. officials have said they can arrest him on other charges, like jumping bail. And if he’s extradited to the United States, he could be subject to a variety of charges related to WikiLeaks. If he is ever extradited to the U.S. for charges related to release of documents stolen by Chelsea Manning, he could be in serious trouble.

Redactions Wanted

WikiLeaks’ “leak all for transparency’s sake” approach to releasing information has garnered it some criticism. In July 2016, WikiLeaks claimed to publish a number of documents related to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The so-called “Erdogan emails” didn’t really appear to contain any political bombshells, but did include links to databases containing the information of Turkish citizens. One database had the personal information of almost every woman in the country. The info included things like addresses, cell phone numbers, and political information. Essentially, WikiLeaks doxxed almost half the country. While the files were eventually taken down, WikiLeaks was criticized for going beyond transparency to potentially harming private individuals.

2016 Election Hacks

WikiLeaks has recently been criticized for its role leaking documents pertaining to the 2016 election. WikiLeaks leaked DNC emails that reflected negatively on Hillary Clinton’s presidency campaign. Charlie Savage of the New York Times argued that Assange specifically timed the release of the DNC emails to come out at the most politically damaging time for Clinton, a claim bolstered by Assange’s own admission that he saw Clinton as a “personal foe.” In addition to releasing emails from the DNC, Wikileaks also published a trove of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s personal email account. Those were also released in batches in a way that kept much of the information in the news as the campaign progressed. WikiLeaks has even been accused of colluding with Russia’s attempts to propel now-President Donald Trump to the presidency. The U.S. intelligence community issued a report that attributed the DNC hack to Russian intelligence services, which caused many to question the extent to which WikiLeaks is associated with the Russian government. WikiLeaks has refused to divulge the source of the documents and has so far denied any connection with Russia.

Conclusion

As a political topic, WikiLeaks is no doubt controversial. In the era of fake news, and distrust in the media and government institutions, WikiLeaks has often garnered credit for being willing to provide ordinary citizens with primary sources. On the other hand, WikiLeaks’ mystique, founder’s legal issues, and accusations of bias and irresponsible dissemination of information has led to plenty of criticism. In fact, in the last year, plenty of think pieces have been written, accusing WikiLeaks of “losing its friends” and “losing the moral high ground.” But given the space it has carved out as a repository for leaked information, and the relative fame of some of the people associated with it, including Julian Assange, it’s unlikely to disappear from our radars anytime soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is WikiLeaks and Who is Julian Assange? appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration continues its efforts to undo much of the regulation put in place during President Barack Obama’s term in office, the FCC’s efforts to peel back net neutrality rules will be particularly controversial, as the issue has sparked fierce debate for several years. While much of the regulatory rollback happened quickly using the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows for expedited removal of recent regulations under a new president, the net neutrality rules will take quite a bit more time. In fact, this is just the latest development in a regulatory dispute that has been going on for nearly 10 years. Read on to see why this is such a contentious issue, what the proposed regulations would do, and what we can expect in the weeks and years ahead.

Quick Refresher: What is Net Neutrality?

While many people have heard the term network neutrality, understanding of it tends to vary widely. That may be because net neutrality is more of a general concept than a set of clear rules. The principle behind it is the idea that all online content should be treated equally and that no internet provider should be able to discriminate or block content regardless of the source or type. Most people support net neutrality, or at least the general concept behind it, but disagree on what needs to be done to ensure that networks are designed in a way that lives up to that principle. That disagreement is what brings us to the current debate over internet regulations. Some advocates argue that regulations blocking internet providers from discriminating against or privileging certain content or sources are necessary to protect a free and open internet. Opponents argue that absent these regulations we still wouldn’t have a problem with content discrimination and we should have as few regulations as possible to allow for internet investment and innovation.

The two major categories of groups involved in these debates are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content companies. Internet service providers are the companies that sell access to the internet, like Timer Warner Cable, Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T. Content companies are the businesses that create and distribute the things you find online–notable examples of these include Netflix, Google, and Facebook, but every website or online service is essentially a content company. The three core priorities for net neutrality regulation have been to prohibit blocking, slowing, and the paid prioritization of a source or type of content as it makes its way through the network to consumers.

While many agree that blocking and slowing shouldn’t be allowed, the issue of paid prioritization is one that tends to have more gray areas. This debate manifests itself in the context of internet fast lanes, where companies can pay up to ensure that consumers can download their services as quickly as possible, giving them a potential edge over the competition. For more on the fast lane debate, check out this explainer.

What Were the Old Rules?

Before we can get into the FCC’s proposal to peel back net neutrality rules, let’s take a quick look at how we got here. While Columbia Law professor Tim Wu coined the phrase in a journal article published in 2003, the regulatory debate didn’t really come into play until 2008, when it was revealed that Comcast was blocking or slowing BitTorrent traffic on its network. After that dispute, the FCC tried to intervene to prohibit companies from slowing or blocking traffic, but a federal appeals court ruled against the commission, concluding that it had limited authority over internet traffic. Two years later, the FCC issued an Open Internet Order establishing rules that sought to ensure neutrality with a focus on blocking, discrimination, and transparency. However, Verizon sued the commission, and in 2014, a federal appeals court struck down the bulk of those rules and concluded that under the internet’s current classification, the FCC didn’t have the authority to prevent ISPs from slowing or blocking web traffic.

At the center of the issue was the FCC’s initial decision to classify the internet as an information service and not a telecommunication service. The Communications Act of 1934–which created the FCC and was most recently overhauled in 1996–gives the commission varying authority when regulating these different services. The courts ruled that under the initial classification of the internet, the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit the blocking or slowing of web traffic. Following those decisions, the FCC decided in 2015 to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, which gave it much greater authority to regulate. It then imposed regulations that were similar in principle to the original rules, but were upheld initially by the courts due to the new classification. This change, classifying the internet as a public utility, allowed the FCC to regulate providers as common carriers to block any form of traffic discrimination.

The FCC’s New Plan

Although the Obama-era FCC, led by former Chairman Tom Wheeler, went through the process of reclassifying the internet to allow for stricter regulation, that effort will likely be reversed under President Trump. The 2015 rules were adopted after a 3-2 vote by the FCC and one of the commissioners voting against the measure, Ajit Pai, now holds the reins as the commission’s chairman and has since vowed to undo those regulations.

Re-Reclassification

The FCC recently took the first step in its efforts to remove the utility-style regulations placed on the internet. While the whole process will likely take some time and face several lawsuits along the way, much like the original reclassification process, most expect Commissioner Pai to be successful. The process for creating new regulations is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a notice and comment period for all proposed changes. This means that the FCC is required to notify the public that a rule change is coming, then seek public comments and take those into consideration as it develops the final rule. The FCC issued its notice of proposed rulemaking on May 18 to begin that process. While we do not know exactly what the new rule will involve–after the comment period, the final rule will be drafted, debated, and then adopted–the public notice outlined the commission’s goals going forward.

First, the rule would reclassify the internet to remove Title II regulations from internet service providers, moving back to what proponents call a light-touch framework under Title I. It would also reclassify mobile broadband, provided companies like AT&T and Verizon, as a private mobile service, which currently faces the same common carrier regulations after the 2015 rule change. Finally, the notice also asks for comments on what are known as the FCC’s bright-line rules, which are the central components of past net neutrality regulations. Specifically, these rules prevent providers from blocking, slowing, and creating paid prioritization deals with content companies. Finally, the proposal would remove a conduct standard created under the Title II regulations that applied to all ISPs.

While blocking and slowing have been important issues in the past, the possibility for paid prioritization, or internet fast lanes, under the new rules could have the biggest effect on the direction of the internet. This form of prioritization would allow large content companies like Netflix and YouTube to negotiate deals with ISPs to ensure that their content is delivered to consumers faster than other services. While competitors may be able to strike up their own deals in an effort to level the playing field, new companies may not have sufficient money in the early stages of development to secure these deals, making established companies more difficult to challenge.

In the video below, Chairman Pai outlines his goals for the new regulation:

FCC Chairman Pai argues that these rules will spur investment, leading ISPs to expand and improve upon their networks. He says that the utility-style regulation under the current rules places too much of a regulatory burden on internet companies making additional investment less attractive. In Pai’s view, investing in innovation and infrastructure is one of the most important issues facing the internet today, so he prefers fewer regulations in an effort to spur that investment.

Opponents argue that net neutrality is core to the innovative nature of the internet, and note that several companies have said that such rules would have little impact on investment decisions. Moreover, they note that given the ubiquity of the internet in our personal and professional lives, we should start to look at it like another utility company. Instead of loosening regulations to allow companies to innovate, we should view these networks like we do the electrical grid–as essential to our daily lives–and regulate them as such. The video below outlines the rationale for viewing ISPs as utilities:

Conclusion

Internet rules have been one of the most controversial regulatory issues in the last several years and the FCC’s recent efforts to change them once again mean that they will continue to be a hot-button issue in years to come. While the concept of net neutrality is quite broad, most of the current discussion focuses on whether we need rules to prevent blocking, slowing, and paid prioritization of online content–the so-called bright-line rules.

Amidst these larger debates are more technocratic ones relating to the extent of the Federal Communication Commission’s authority to regulate the internet. When previous attempts to enact bright-line rules to prevent discrimination against any kind of traffic have failed when challenged in the courts, the FCC under President Obama decided to reclassify the internet in order to make those rules with the necessary authority. While the Title II, utility-style regulations were initially upheld by the court, it’s unclear whether that question will be answered now that the new chairman is already working to undo past efforts. Given the level of interest across the political spectrum and from private citizens and large corporations alike, more court cases are likely to follow. But many still expect these changes, once they have worked their way through they regulatory process, to be upheld in the courts. Given the number of changes to internet regulation in the past several years, many observers have called on Congress to settle the issue once and for all. While the future of net neutrality remains uncertain, we can expect the ensuing regulatory debates to continue to ignite the vigorous public debate.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Behind the FCC’s New Plan to Peel Back the Net Neutrality Rules appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, South African President Jacob Zuma publicly indicated that he might endorse his ex-wife to be the next leader of his party, the African National Congress. Zuma will soon be finishing his term as the head of the party and rumors indicate that he may even end his term as president early amid calls for him to step down. The reason for his potential exit stems from a number of controversies that have reached a fever pitch in the country after he has led the party once run by Nelson Mandela for more than a decade. Read on to find out more about the legacy of the ANC, its current leadership, and how the myriad scandals engulfing President Zuma could affect the party going forward.

The African National Congress

The ANC or African National Congress, now headed by Jacob Zuma and once led by the luminary Nelson Mandela, started back in 1912. Originally, the party was known as the South African Native National Congress (SANNC) and was founded with the hope of achieving equality for the majority black population of South Africa (it was renamed the ANC in 1923). Despite growing pains, due to limited funds and internal squabbles, the party endured and rose to prominence in response to Apartheid, which fueled political activism.

In 1961, the party moved beyond activism and started a military wing known as Spear of the Nation or MK. The military branch waged war with the South African Apartheid government with support from sympathetic African nations and from the Soviet Union. Apartheid finally ended in 1994 and the ANC quickly came to dominate the first few elections up through the early 2000s. But the party’s grasp on power began to slip with the election of Jacob Zuma in 2009, and it slipped further with his reelection in 2014.

Nelson Mandela

One of the key figures in the rise and eventual dominance of the ANC was Nelson Mandela, who joined the party in 1944. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, he played an instrumental role in many of the party’s major programs–including the ANC Youth League, its Defiance Campaign, and the Freedom Charter Campaign–until his arrest following the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre. After his release and acquittal in an earlier treason trial in the mid-1950s, he led the formation of the MK and was its first Commander-in-Chief. He was arrested again in 1962 and sentenced to five years in prison for incitement and illegally leaving the country when he traveled to Botswana. However, when police discovered his diary detailing his plans for armed conflict, he was infamously sentenced to life in prison on Robben Island in 1964.

Mandela spent the next 27 years in prison. When he was finally released in 1990 the ANC was also removed from the list of banned parties following domestic and global pressure on the Apartheid government. In 1991, he ascended to become the leader of the ANC after two separate stints as its deputy president in the 1950s and 1980s. In 1994, Mandela was elected president of South Africa in an unopposed election. He retired from the post in 1999 and was succeeded by Thabo Mbeki, who had already assumed Mandela’s role as president of the ANC in 1997.

The video below goes into more detail about Nelsen Mandela’s life:

While serving as President of both the ANC and the nation, Mbeki would famously dismiss current South African President Jacob Zuma from his position as the country’s Deputy President in 2005 after he was implicated in a bribery scandal. This led to a split in the party, however, Zuma would ultimately prevail–taking over the ANC in 2007 and the presidency in 2009, while essentially forcing Mbeki into retirement.

Zuma’s Many Controversies

Jacob Zuma was a decidedly different leader than Mandela, although their paths converged in several key instances. Unlike Mandela, a trained lawyer, Zuma was born into poverty to a single mother and had no formal schooling. When he was just 17 he joined the ANC’s militant branch led by Mandela. He was imprisoned alongside Mandela and went into exile in Mozambique after he was released. In 1990, he returned and participated in the discussions that brought about the end of the Apartheid government. Zuma’s everyman appeal and his adherence to traditional African norms made him popular. These traits proved to be the deciding factors in his rise to power and in his dispute with former President Mbeki, whom he helped force to resign in 2008.

While Zuma shared the charisma of Mandela, he has differed in his inability to avoid controversy. Long before he became president, he was embroiled in a bribery scandal concerning a large arms deal in the late 1990s. While the case was eventually dropped almost 10 years later by the country’s National Prosecution Authority, it was done under dubious circumstances and just before he was elected president. The circumstances were so suspicious that a campaign to reopen the case continues today.

Zuma also attracted negative press when he took money from the South African government to make lavish additions to his home, although he promised to pay back the loans. The country’s highest court actually ruled in 2016 that his actions were unconstitutional, forcing him to apologize and promise again to pay back the loans. Even his personal life has been controversial, as he adheres to a Zulu tradition of polygamy and has four wives and 21 children. Some of his children have come from extra-marital affairs, and in one of those cases, he was accused of rape, although he was ultimately acquitted.

Zuma’s Time in Office

Despite his frequent scandals, Zuma did have one notably large accomplishment during his time in office. He oversaw a restructuring of the country’s AIDS policies, which made HIV medication much more easily available to South Africans. This was particularly important given that South Africa has the highest number of people living with HIV in the world. This was in stark contrast to the policies put in place under Mbeki, who doubted the relationship between HIV and AIDS.

But Zuma recently has faced even more criticism when he fired the country’s finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, earlier this year. Gordhan’s firing contributed to Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade South Africa’s credit rating to junk status. The economic situation is particularly relevant because it was one of the issues Zuma had campaigned on as a way to differentiate himself from his predecessor, who he associated with political and economic elites.

Unfortunately for Zuma, the economy has not done him many favors. While it narrowly avoided a recession last year and is projected to grow by 1 percent this year, things are not great. Although the GDP of Africa’s largest economy is growing, its unemployment rate continues to rise and its per capita income is expected to decline. The unemployment rate in South Africa reached a 13-year high of 27.1 percent in 2016.

Consistent scandals and economic hardship have led to a breaking point for Zuma. Efforts are currently underway to hold a vote of no-confidence by secret ballot. Although Zuma has managed to survive past votes of no-confidence, they have never been done through secret balloting, which could give members of his own party cover to vote against him. A march in support of the secret ballot also took place recently in Johannesburg. Some have suggested that Zuma may endorse his ex-wife in an attempt to secure a pardon from the next president. An endorsement could also ensure that he continues to have political influence even after he leaves his post.

What’s Next for South Africa?

Since the end of Apartheid and the beginning of democracy in South Africa, the ANC has never been out of power. However, after the party lost elections in several key metro areas for the first time last year, that streak may be coming to an end. Specifically, in the area of Gauteng, traditionally an ANC stronghold, a private survey showed a drop of more than 10 percent in the party’s public support following Zuma’s latest round of controversies. Although it is impossible to point to the exact cause of that drop, the survey results indicated that the recent scandals played an important role in last year’s local elections.

With upcoming elections, the party must now consider something once considered impossible, the need to form a coalition government in the absence of a clear majority. Despite the seemingly endless stream of controversies following Zuma, the ANC has so far refused to call on him to resign, although many have criticized his decision to fire the finance minister.

The video below looks at the current challenges facing the ANC:

Conclusion

The African National Congress came to prominence while challenging the Apartheid government in South Africa. It became the leading party in the country for the black majority and stood in opposition to the white minority ruling party. The ANC was eventually led by Nelson Mandela, a man who literally embodied this struggle. Upon his release from prison and subsequent election, the ANC appeared to have unquestioned dominance in South African politics.

Nevertheless, that dominance has begun to show signs of waning. Several municipalities have already voted the ANC out of power and now it must learn to develop coalitions, a challenge that it has never really had to deal with before but must already grapple with at the local level. Part of this can be attributed to the party achieving, at least to some degree, many of its original goals. But a much larger problem is the political capital lost by Jacob Zuma, the party’s current leader  and president of the country. Zuma’s endless scandals and provocative nature appear to finally have worn thin on the voters. The transition of power in Africa’s largest economy and one of its most politically stable since the end of Apartheid bears watching. Even if the ANC retains its dominance, a change of the guard seems to be coming sooner rather than later.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The ANC After Zuma: What’s Next for South Africa? appeared first on Law Street.

As new platform companies like Uber and Lyft have people talking about the nature of work in the gig economy, the concept of employment has become more difficult to define. Recent research has shown that the number of workers who aren’t technically employees has increased significantly in recent decades. While this might not seem like a bad thing on its face, employment status has traditionally been tied to important protections and benefits, which may be eroding as these shifts affect a growing group of workers. While new tech companies get most of the attention as we debate the changing nature of work, it’s also important to realize that they are only playing a small part in larger trends. Read on to see how employment is changing, who is affected, and what that means for workers.

How Many People Are We Talking About?

While platform companies like Uber have gotten most of the attention lately, particularly in the context of labor disputes, it’s important to look at the scope of employment trends and the role that technology companies, and many others, currently play. Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of available data on the growth of individuals with what are called “alternative work arrangements”–temporary workers, on-call workers, freelancers, contract workers, and independent contractors. What’s notable about these work arrangements is that they differ from traditional employment status, as they are typically less stable and include fewer protections and benefits.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics hasn’t conducted its Contingent Worker Survey (CWS) since 2005, which is where we would traditionally look to for a better understanding of how many Americans have non-traditional employment situations. However, economists Alan Krueger and Lawrence Katz sought to make up for the gap in data by partnering with the Rand Corporation to conducting a survey of their own, which could be compared with past versions of the CWS to see how things have changed.

Krueger and Katz designed their survey to mirror the CWS so that they could accurately track how the share of workers with these alternative work arrangements has changed over time. In their research, they find a significant growth in the number of these workers from 2005 to 2015 in terms of their share of the total labor force–from about 10 percent in 2005 to nearly 16 percent in 2015.

Importantly, the researchers note that the increase in workers with alternative arrangements, 9.4 million between 2005 and 2015, is actually larger than the total increase in total employment (9.1 million). This means that the number of people who have traditional jobs actually decreased slightly over the last decade, while the number of people who work as independent contractors increased–by a lot. As Katz and Krueger put it, “A striking implication of these estimates is that all of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements.” In 2015, the total number of these workers had grown to 23.6 million.

All Because of Uber?

While online platforms that match workers with temporary gigs–like Uber, Lyft, Task Rabbit, etc.–have brought the issue of nontraditional employment into the forefront, these companies actually play a relatively small role in the overall trend. In fact, Katz and Krueger estimate that these companies accounted for just 0.5 percent of the total workforce, or about 600,000 people, in 2015. While it’s likely that as these companies have grown that share has increased, they remain a small part of the shift toward alternative work arrangements.

Although technology platform companies account for a small share of alternative employment they have been at the center of the debate. Some see these companies as a great opportunity for people to use the resources that they have to easily and quickly make some money on the side or even full time. Others see the rise of companies like Uber as a problem–attributing their success to their ability to skirt or work around employment laws, not a triumph of new technology. There’s a notable segment of the population who may have an opinion about the quality of these services but haven’t given much thought to what they mean for their workers. Finally, it’s important to note that a significant percentage of people haven’t experienced or aren’t familiar with these services. According to a Pew Research Center survey from 2015, only 15 percent of Americans had used ride-hailing apps like Lyft and Uber, and one-third of Americans hadn’t even heard of them. While those numbers include important caveats–they focus on ride-hailing apps, not the gig economy as a whole, and more people have likely become familiar with these services since then–it’s important not to overstate the size of this phenomenon.

While the share of workers rose for all four of the alternative work arrangement classifications, there was a notable increase in workers hired by contract firms and temporary help firms, which according to Katz and Krueger account for more than half of the total increase between 2005 and 2015. Independent contractors still account for the largest percentage of people in these work arrangements at an estimated 8.4 percent of the labor force.

What Does it Mean to be an Employee?

In light of all of this, we should take a look at the differences between employee status and independent contractor status. Workers who have formal employee status with their employer are entitled to a range of benefits and are protected by several workplace-related laws. They can also collect unemployment benefits, disability insurance, and workers compensation. Contractors typically do not have these same protections and benefits and are responsible for the full share of their payroll taxes, while employers pay half of the tax burden for employees.

Being an independent contractor has its benefits, notably more control over your work, but that comes with fewer protections and benefits. There are several ways to determine if you are an independent contractor or an employee, but a lot of it boils down to how much control your employer has over what you do. Some people may prefer the freedom provided by contract work and freelancing, while others might prefer the stability and benefits involved with traditional employment.

Potential Challenges

While some may be willing to make the tradeoffs when opting for an alternative work arrangement, not everyone has that choice. In an effort to keep costs lower and more predictable, many companies have started to outsource tasks that would traditionally be done by employees to independent contractors. As a result, people looking for traditional employment may only be able to find contracting jobs, creating greater uncertainty for workers. While Katz and Krueger approximate that the shift to alternative work arrangements has been larger for high-income workers, examples of low-wage contracting abound and further research needs to be done to identify how the shifts contribute to wage inequality.

Work simply isn’t as steady and as reliable when you are freelancing or working as a contractor, and importantly, it is much more difficult for contractors to get benefits that are widely available to employees. These workers are also not protected by minimum wage and overtime laws and are typically unable to collectively bargain. And when businesses need to cut costs, they are more likely to reduce contracting expenses before they fire employees.

Many people actively decide to forgo those protections in order to have more control over their schedule and work, but given that this change has occurred during a period of high unemployment, workers may be taking these positions out of necessity rather than choice. While we don’t know exactly what prompted these larger trends, it’s fair to question whether workers in alternative arrangements would prefer to be traditional employees if they had the option.

Addressing Changes in the Nature of Work

As more and more people find themselves without the benefits and protections of traditional employment, many advocates and policymakers have proposed solutions to protect these workers. Some have called for the creation of an intermediate classification to help workers that are not considered employees. Alan Krueger, this time with Seth Harris, proposed a new classification that they call the “independent worker.” Sitting in between the existing classifications, independent workers would be able to take advantage of some, but not all, of the protections provided to employees. They would be allowed collective bargaining rights and could pool together to fund insurance programs. They would also be able to benefit from tax withholding in their paychecks and would have their employer pay its half of their payroll taxes. While this classification would give them civil rights protections, minimum wage and overtime laws would not apply to them. Proponents argue that amending employment laws could give employers more flexibility while still ensuring important benefits and protections to workers.

Absent a new classification, some local governments have already made efforts to expand certain protections to independent contractors. In 2015, the Seattle City Council passed legislation to expand collective bargaining rights to drivers who work for transportation network companies as well as online platforms like Uber and Lyft. This allows drivers in the city to form unions and negotiate for better wages and benefits with the companies that they work for. However, that legislation was temporarily blocked by the courts before it took effect.

Other proposals focus on creating portable benefits, which are not tied to employment status. An example of this came from the Affordable Care Act, which created exchanges for individuals to buy health insurance on their own. The law also provides premium subsidies to reduce costs for those with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Additional efforts like President Obama’s proposed MyRA program would allow people in alternative work arrangements to have access to a simplified retirement account untethered from an employer. There is a range of proposals that would create systems for contract workers to buy benefits on their own or with the help of their employer.

Conclusion

As more and more people find themselves in alternative work arrangements, the traditional concept of employment  is changing. Many workers now have to manage work that is less stable and provides fewer benefits and protections relative to traditional employment. While these shifts likely reflect, at least in part, the changing preferences of workers, as people desire more flexibility and control, it is also likely that many people would prefer traditional employment.

Most of the recent discussion of these trends have focused on the rise of technology platform companies, which allow individuals to find short-term gigs as a new form of work. But that debate tends to mask the larger trend, as technology companies still account for a small share of the total labor force. In order to address this shift help the affected workers, policymakers will need to rethink how employment is connected to important benefits and protections. Proposals ranging from an entirely new employment classification to portable benefits, seek to address the needs of workers while ensuring that new companies have the flexibility they need to grow.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Gig Economy and the Changing Nature of Work appeared first on Law Street.

For many families in the United States, hunger can be a daily struggle. According to Feeding America, in 2015, about 13 percent of households were food insecure. In total, 42.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 13.1 million children. There are also concerns that many lower-income Americans are overweight or obese–there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that low-income children are more likely to be overweight or obese than children in higher-income households. One concept that gets talked about a lot when it comes to hunger and health in the United States is the idea of a “food desert.” But what is a food desert, where are they, and what impact do they have on food insecurity?

What Exactly is a Food Desert?

While there are a number of different definitions that can be applied to the concept of a food desert, it’s generally defined as an area in which it is difficult to find fresh fruit, vegetables, and other “whole” foods that when combined, contribute to a well-balanced diet. In many cases, nearby supermarkets aren’t easily accessible by public transportation, and oftentimes, the residents don’t have access to cars. Essentially, a food desert just means an area in which it is difficult to come by wholesome and nutritious food.

Food deserts are usually located in lower-income areas, often neighborhoods in which most residents are people of color. According to the Food Empowerment Project, a non-profit that works to provide food to low income areas, wealthy areas have almost three times as many supermarkets as lower-income areas. And neighborhoods that are predominately white have four times as many supermarkets as majority black neighborhoods.

What’s a Food Swamp?

In addition to the concept of a food desert, you may hear the term “food swamp” thrown around occasionally. A food swamp is usually defined as an area where there is access to healthy food, but there is easier access to unhealthy foods, like junk food and fast food.

The concepts of food desert and swamp are closely related. In fact, there are arguments that “food swamp” is a more accurate term than food desert altogether, because many lower-income neighborhoods have plenty of fast food restaurants and convenience stores that carry unhealthy foods.

Where Are Food Deserts Located? 

There are multiple measures that can be used to determine whether or not a place is a “food desert.”

Redfin, for example, determined food deserts by calculating the percentage of people in a given city who can walk to a grocery store within five minutes. Using those metrics applied to 2014 data, the five American cities with the lowest percentage of people who can walk to a grocery store in five minutes are, in this order: Indianapolis at 5 percent; Oklahoma City at 5 percent, Charlotte at 6 percent, Tuscon at 6 percent, and Albuquerque at 7 percent. In contrast, the five American cities with the highest percentage of food access within five minutes were New York City at 72 percent, San Francisco at 59 percent, Philadelphia at 57 percent, Boston at 45 percent, and Washington D.C. at 41 percent.

That’s not to say that all food deserts exist in cities. In fact, rural areas are hard hit as well, although they need to be classified slightly differently. The metric usually applied to rural food deserts is if there’s no grocery store within 10 miles of a high-population area. In some rural areas, this is exacerbated by population shifts, as more people are moving to urban and suburban areas. When people move out of an area, grocery stores close, sometimes creating food deserts.

And certain areas are harder hit than others–for example, many Native American reservations fall under the definition of food deserts. Navajo Nation is almost 30,000 square miles, but only has 10 grocery stores. A study conducted by the Diné Policy Institute concluded that “a majority of participants from the communities represented in this study travel at least 155 miles round trip, while others regularly drive up to 240 miles to access foods.”

In 2011, the United States Department of Agriculture created an online, interactive map tool that measures food deserts across the country. The tool uses the following definition to measure what a food desert is:

A food desert is a low-income census tract where either a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. ‘Low income’ tracts are defined as those where at least 20 percent of the people have income at or below the federal poverty levels for family size, or where median family income for the tract is at or below 80 percent of the surrounding area’s median family income. Tracts qualify as ‘low access’ tracts if at least 500 persons or 33 percent of their population live more than a mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (for rural census tracts, the distance is more than 10 miles).

According to then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the tool is intended to:

Help policy makers, community planners, researchers, and other professionals identify communities where public-private intervention can help make fresh, healthy, and affordable food more readily available to residents. With this and other Web tools, USDA is continuing to support federal government efforts to present complex sets of data in creative, accessible online format.

You can check out the tool for yourself here.

How Can the Problem of Food Deserts Be Solved?

There have been a lot of proposed solutions for food deserts. One prominent figure working to eliminate food deserts is former First Lady Michelle Obama, who made it one of the primary focuses of her activism. The Obama Administration put forth the solution of funding and equipping grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods, as well as providing financing for other options for healthy food, like farmers markets and co-ops.

There have been other, more unique solutions proposed as well. In some places, volunteers work to transport healthy food that would otherwise be disposed of from grocery stores in other areas. Some areas have taken to promoting urban farming and community gardens to combat food deserts. There are also efforts to put healthier, whole foods into already-existing institutions, like introducing more produce options into convenience stores and neighborhood corner shops.

Do Food Deserts Actually Need to be “Solved?”

There are also questions of whether food deserts are actually the issue, or at the very least the whole issue. There’s an argument to be made that obesity and poor nutrition aren’t necessarily caused by a lack of access to whole food, but rather issues with people’s shopping and eating habits.

Some research indicates that the increased presence of supermarkets in food deserts doesn’t do much to improve the shopping choices that locals make. In addition to a lack of education about nutrition, other factors go into play, like convenience, habit, the fact that unhealthy food is sometimes the cheapest, and strong advertising pushes from junk food producers.

As a result, some efforts to counter food deserts have focused on improving nutrition education. For example, there is a preschool in Memphis, Tennessee, that works with its students, many of whom live in food desert areas, to teach them the importance of a healthy diet from a young age.

Conclusion

Food deserts are such a fluid concept that it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what they are, where they are, and what exactly they mean for the American population. Some argue that food deserts are a myth, and that our concentration should be focused on providing more nutrition education, not more choices of shopping venues. But one thing that is certain is that the rates of hunger and obesity in the United States–one of the richest countries in the world–are downright unacceptable, and food deserts are one concept that will continue to be brought up to combat those concerning trends.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is a Food Desert? appeared first on Law Street.

On May 7, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill that will allow law enforcement officers in Texas to inquire about people’s immigration status during stops. It also threatens to punish officers who do not cooperate with federal immigration agents. While the signing–which took place spontaneously on a Sunday night–caught opponents by surprise, the places targeted by the law, known as sanctuary cities, have been a large part of the public immigration debate lately. What is less clear is what exactly sanctuary cities are and why there has been so much controversy surrounding them. Read on to find the answers to these questions and the outlook for so-called sanctuary cities going forward.

Sanctuary Cities

So what exactly are sanctuary cities? Although the term is frequently thrown around, there is actually no legal definition for what constitutes a sanctuary city, it’s more of a concept. Much of the debate boils down to how local law enforcement cooperate with federal immigration efforts. There are several cities and local governments that have laws preventing local law enforcement from turning over suspects to federal authorities for deportation. Although this may seem surprising, as the law currently stands, local authorities have no legal obligation to assist federal immigration enforcement. There are currently at least five states and 633 counties with some sort of laws limiting law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration agents.

The video below details what sanctuary cities are and how they work:

The Political Battle

On his fifth day in office, President Donald Trump entered the fray by drafting an executive order that threatened to punish any local governments that do not aid federal authorities in tracking down and detaining people who entered the country illegally. Not only did Trump’s executive order threaten to punish these cities, it also made more people eligible for deportation. Namely, the order now allows anyone who has, “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense or pose a risk to public safety in the judgment of an immigration officer” to be deported. Before Trump’s executive order, the focus for deportation had been a crime-based removal rational, specifically targeting those who had already been convicted of crimes.

The previously established guidance allowed local law enforcement to choose to hold someone or not while Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiated with deportation proceedings. If a local jail had someone targeted for deportation, federal immigration authorities would ask local law enforcement to hold that person for additional time, typically 48 hours, so that they could initiate the deportation proceedings. However, with the recent executive order, counties that limit their cooperation with federal authorities–an example of which may be declining federal detention requests–would need to change their policies or face a potential loss in federal funding.

Local law enforcement had the option to deny retainer requests in the first place because the Department of Homeland Security determined that holding someone without a warrant while deportation proceedings began could actually be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And given additional legal issues surrounding conditions placed on federal grant funding, President Trump’s executive order was frozen in April by a federal judge. Regardless of the order’s fate, there is still confusion between neighboring districts and fear among law enforcement that orders like these will prevent immigrants from speaking to and assisting the police.

While sanctuary cities have taken on greater prominence under the Trump presidency, the sanctuary movement actually goes back more than 30 years to another celebrity Republican president. That president was Ronald Reagan and the people arriving then were from Central America, fleeing authoritarian governments supported by the United States in an effort to stop the spread of communism. In that case, the United States refused to help the refugees trying to escape violence from a government that it had helped keep in power. However, churches, colleges, and even cities responded by whisking these people across the border into safe havens.

The video below looks at the origins of the sanctuary movement:

Although targeting sanctuary cities and increasing deportation efforts have become important issues for Republicans lately, historically, expanding immigration enforcement has not been unique to one party. On the contrary, Trump’s predecessor President Obama, who is often touted as a staunch civil rights defender, enacted similar policies during his two terms. In fact, at one point during the Obama presidency, deportations reached an all-time high with more than 400,000 people deported in one year. Even after policy changes that sought to refocus enforcement efforts to target only convicted criminals were implemented, the number of deportations remained as high as 240,000 people in Obama’s last year in office. Most of the people deported by the Obama Administration were from either Mexico or Central America.

As for sanctuary cities themselves, in many ways, former President Obama actually helped fuel their rise. While the sanctuary movement had been around for decades, Obama’s Secure Communities program–built off of an earlier Bush presidency idea, which made it mandatory for local police to share information with federal authorities–vaulted the issue into public debate. Obama did eventually end the program, however, he remained focused on immigration enforcement, as the numbers indicate, up to the end of his term. While immigration enforcement has been a priority for presidents from both parties, Obama’s policies shifted the focus toward punishing convicted criminals and sharing information rather than targeting all immigrants. President Trump’s recent efforts go further to increase the number of people considered priorities for deportation and he has started directly confronting cities that limit cooperation with federal authorities.

What’s next?

Although the Sanctuary Movement has been around since at least the 1980s, its future is unclear. As part of the same executive order President Trump signed in January, he also threatened to cut off all federal funding to sanctuary cities. While experts doubt that Trump would be able to cut off all funding for these cities, many of the legal questions have not yet been resolved by the courts. The Trump Administration could also consider getting an injunction against certain policies in certain sanctuary cities that go beyond not helping and actually hinder federal efforts. The following video looks at what President Trump might do to sanctuary cities that refuse to change their laws:

The Obama Administration also predated any of Trump’s actions by threatening to withhold funds for not complying with federal laws. Last February, the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, agreed to transfer illegal immigrants who have completed their federal sentences into the custody of immigration officers instead of local authorities if those local authorities have shown resistance to ICE in the past. Additionally, threats to withhold federal grants for places that do not share information when requested by federal authorities came in 2016 under the Obama Administration.

These were not the only efforts to dissuade sanctuary cities either. In 2015, the House also passed a bill, which would prohibit sanctuary cities from receiving certain Justice Department grants. That bill would block federal funding for immigration-related grants, like a program that reimburses cities for the costs involved in detaining deportation targets for additional time, as well as more general law enforcement funding like money from the Justice Assistant Grant program and the Community-Oriented Policing Services program. Despite these efforts at the federal level, many cities have remained defiant. In Boulder, for example, the city voted to recognize itself as a sanctuary city even though doing so would open it up to further funding threats.

Conclusion

In February, shortly after President Trump took office, federal immigration enforcement executed a number of raids across 12 states in an effort to sweep up illegal immigrants. However, these raids differed from those that took place during the Obama Administration in that they targeted a higher percentage of people who had not been convicted of crimes. Although differing from the past administration’s policy guidance, these actions followed in line with the executive order issued by Trump soon after his inauguration.

The sanctuary movement, and sanctuary cities in particular, have sprung up since the 1980s to respond to increased enforcement efforts. However, efforts both by the previous Obama Administration, and now President Trump, have sought to undercut local governments who seek to restrict cooperation with federal authorities. This has been done through vehicles such as Trump’s executive order but also primarily through threats of reduced federal funding. While the president’s efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities involves several unanswered legal questions, the scope of potential funding losses could cause a significant blow to local budgets. Nevertheless, these places have for the most part continued to stand up and resist federal immigration policies that would require them to assist in deporting illegal immigrants.

With Trump’s executive order on immigration enforcement and others, such as the travel ban, currently working their way through the courts, these issues are in the process of being resolved. An important question after that point is whether the parties involved will abide by the decision reached by the courts.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Safe Havens? The Story Behind Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Social media has the ability to bring together people from all walks of life to interact. But the ensuing interactions aren’t always positive–the ubiquity of social media has opened up plenty of people to harassment. While online harassment can include a variety of forms–including cyberbullying, cyberstalking and revenge porn–there are other forms of online harassment that you may start to hear more about moving forward: doxxing and swatting. Read on to learn more about these forms of online harassment, some of the more prominent victims of them, and the potential legal ramifications in the United States.

What are Doxxing and Swatting?

Doxxing 

Doxxing, which comes from the word “document,” is the release of an online user’s private information, including but not limited to photo, address, birthdate, and Social Security number. This release is usually done for a particular purpose–for example, to reveal the anonymity of a person online. Someone who operates under their own name–say, a journalist–could also be doxxed, if their personal information is disseminated to the internet. And it’s not just individuals who can be doxxed, as the term can be applied to group membership. But no matter who is doxxed, it’s safe to say that someone who doxxes someone else intends to cause some sort of harm.

Swatting 

Swatting is another form of online harassment, which can be sometimes (but not always) connected to doxxing. Swatting involves falsely reporting an emergency, in the hopes that a “swat” team or other law enforcement officers show up to the location that is being targeted. According to the National 911 program:

The calling party will often report they are involved or nearby as a witness to a home invasion, active shooter, or hostage situation, attempting to muster the largest response possible. Often, the law enforcement response is substantial, with police confronting the unsuspecting victims at gunpoint, only to learn that there is no real emergency.

Those who attempt to cause a swatting incident use several techniques, including: caller ID spoofing, TTY relay technologies, and social engineering.

Swatting is usually done with the intent of causing fear in the subject, or occasionally as a cruel prank.

What are some real-life examples of doxxing and swatting?

There have been many high-profile examples of both doxxing and swatting. From politicians to celebrities to journalists, it’s become an increasingly common practice. It’s also important to note that doxxing and swatting aren’t practices limited to one particular ideology, political party, or group. During the 2016 election, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters accused each other of the practices, whether those claims were substantiated or not.

Here are a couple of examples of each:

Doxxing: Anonymous 

Anonymous, the well-known group of “hacktivists,” has frequently doxxed various individuals it has decided to attack. Perhaps most notably, Anonymous made headlines in 2015 when it released a long list of Ku Klux Klan members. The list included alleged members and sympathizers’ real names, as well as their social media accounts.

Doxxing: GamerGate

In 2014 the GamerGate controversy broke, leading to online harassment for some women in the video game industry. One relatively common practice was doxxing–for example Brianna Wu, a female game developer who is now running for Congress and was targeted during the controversy, was doxxed. Other women involved in the gaming industry were doxxed as well, including Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Some tangentially related figures, like actress Felicia Day, were also doxxed. Day’s personal information was released after she wrote an essay about her opinion on GamerGate.

Swatting: Ted Lieu 

Congressman Ted Lieu, who currently represents the 33rd District of California, was swatted when he was a state senator. When he was swatted, Lieu had recently introduced a bill that would actually increase penalties for anyone who engaged in swatting behavior. In April 2013, the police received a call from someone pretending to be Lieu, who claimed he had shot his wife. Lieu was actually out but his wife, Betty, was in the house. Police went to the house and made Betty and their nanny exit the house with their hands up.

Swatting: Celebrities

A number of celebrities have been swatted, perhaps most famously Lil Wayne. In March 2015, an anonymous caller called the police and claimed that four people had been shot at his house in Miami Beach. Miley Cyrus was swatted in 2012, after reports of an armed kidnapper and shooting at her California home. Ashton Kutcher and Justin Bieber were both swatted by a 12-year-old Southern California boy in 2012. Dozens of other celebrities have been victim to swatting, including Simon Cowell, multiple members of the Jenner/Kardashian clan, Rihanna, Tom Cruise, Chris Brown, Clint Eastwood, and Taylor Swift.

Laws Against Doxxing and Swatting

Whether or not doxxing is technically illegal is somewhat up for debate. Most countries don’t have laws that specifically prohibit doxxing, although there are some that have codified it. In the UK in 2016, doxxing was explicitly added to a list of behaviors that can be prosecuted. But in most places, doxxing can be prosecuted only if it’s deemed to fall under another kind of criminal behavior, such as harassment. In cases where a person’s private information, like a Social Security number, is doxxed, it could constitute identity theft. That being said, it’s very difficult to prosecute people for doxxing because it is so often done under the cloud of anonymity. Sometimes it happens across state or country lines. At the end of the day, it’s a tough issue to prosecute.

The legal lines when it comes to swatting are slightly more clearly defined. For one, making false reports to police officers are illegal in many places. And plenty of people have been prosecuted for their role. Individual states, including California, have specifically implemented anti-swatting laws–it was while working on those laws that Lieu was actually swatted himself.

In 2015, Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA) introduced legislation that would have made swatting expressly illegal in Congress–the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act. In this bipartisan effort, Democrat Clark was joined by Republican Representative Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania. Clark’s office published a release that explained the dangers of swatting and pointed out that it’s actually quite costly:

The FBI estimates 400 swatting attacks occur every year. Some attacks, however, have been reported to cost local law enforcement agencies as much as $100,000.  The most serious cost of these attacks is the danger they pose to emergency responders, innocent victims, and their families. Swatting attacks have resulted in injury to law enforcement officers, heart attacks, and serious injury to victims.

The bill didn’t end up making it to a vote but perhaps unsurprisingly, Clark herself was swatted in 2016. An anonymous call made to the local police claimed that there was an active shooter at her home.

However, like with doxxing, it’s very difficult to determine who the perpetrator of a swatting crime is. In general, doxxing and swatting are versions of harassment that require some sort of technological sophistication to be able to pull off. That makes it difficult to identify, arrest, and prosecute suspects.

Conclusion

Doxxing and swatting are just two examples of the kind of harassment made possible by the internet. But while both wouldn’t be possible without the internet, they can lead to real world consequences. For example, an emotional video went viral in 2015 where video game live-streamer named Joshua Peters described how when he was the victim of a swatting, police aimed a gun at his 10-year-old brother who happened to open the door. Given that SWAT raids can lead to officers mistakenly shooting someone, or shooting someone for a relatively minor infraction, it’s not impossible to imagine that swatting could turn deadly for a victim. While it’s hard to prosecute doxxing and swatting, they are clear markers that online harassment doesn’t just affect us online.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Doxxing and Swatting: New Frontiers in Online Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

As the American Health Care Act works its way through Congress, much of the debate has recently focused on issues like health insurance regulation. While that debate reflects important issues, like protections for people with pre-existing conditions, there is another part that would arguably have even larger consequences: the proposed cuts and changes to Medicaid. The AHCA would fundamentally change the funding structure for the safety net program and could have wide ranging effects on millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid for their health care. Read on for an overview of what’s in store for the program that provides insurance to nearly 20 percent of the country.

Who is Affected

Medicaid is the largest health insurance program in the country, which combined with the related Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP), covered nearly 75 million people as of February. Medicaid covers a diverse group of people including low-income individuals and families, people with disabilities, and the elderly.

The video below explores what the Medicaid program is and how it is paid for:

To understand the scope of the proposed changes to Medicaid in the American Health Care Act, it’s important to look at how the bill it’s intended to repeal and replace–the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare–changed health insurance coverage in the first place. Generally speaking, the Affordable Care Act sought to increase insurance coverage by expanding the Medicaid program–through both increasing outreach and eligibility–while also creating regulated insurance marketplaces and providing subsidies to make health insurance more affordable.

The Medicaid expansion was directed at the lowest income Americans, specifically, people living below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, while insurance subsidies targeted those who were slightly better off but would still have difficulty paying for health insurance, namely those with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Regulations also ensured that individuals could buy insurance on public exchanges and that prices couldn’t vary much according to an individual’s characteristics like age, sex, or health status, which was another way to expand coverage to those who were either priced out of the market or denied insurance outright.

While several components of the ACA sought to lower the rate of uninsured Americans, the Medicaid expansion played the largest role in achieving that goal. The AHCA includes important changes for insurance subsidies and regulation–the proposed cuts and changes to Medicaid are considerably larger. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the effects of the AHCA in March after it was initially introduced and found that overall, the law would reduce the number of people with health insurance by 24 million within 10 years. The biggest chunk of that decrease, 14 million, would come from the proposed changes to Medicaid. While the law would not technically take people’s insurance away from them–states would have to make difficult decisions about enrollment and eligibility–it would amount to a large cut in federal spending on the program. In total, the CBO estimates that the bill would lead to an $839 billion decrease in federal Medicaid spending over the next 10 years.

The AHCA includes two primary changes to Medicaid that would lead to a significant reduction in people enrolled in the program. First, the bill would phase out the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, decreasing the number of people that states would get a high percentage of federal matching funds to cover. Second, it would change the program’s funding model from an open-ended commitment to an amount per enrollee that gradually increases over time.

Ending the Medicaid Expansion

The Affordable Care Act offered states matching funds to insure a large number of people newly eligible for Medicaid. A 2012 Supreme Court decision made the Medicaid expansion optional at the state level, and since then, 31 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to take the federal funds. At first, the government would pay the full cost of insuring these newly eligible enrollees, but over time the government’s share would drop, and by 2020, it would cover 90 percent of the cost of coverage. The matching rate for the enrollees who gained coverage from the expansion is actually higher than the traditional matching rate that states have historically received for those who were already eligible.

The American Health Care Act plans to unwind the Medicaid expansion starting in 2020. While the plan will end up with an estimated 14 million fewer people on Medicaid relative to current law, the AHCA’s passage will not technically take health insurance away from these individuals. Instead, it grandfathers in all newly eligible enrollees who are already in the program by December 31, 2019–allowing states to continue to receive the 90 percent fund matching for those individuals. However, for people who sign up after that point, the funding would drop to regular matching levels. This means that states will likely decide to restrict their program’s eligibility and return to standards that were in place before the Affordable Care Act.

People on Medicaid tend to cycle in and out of the program relatively quickly, which means that even though the AHCA grandfathers in expansion enrollees, coverage numbers are expected to drop fairly quickly after 2020, when states get lower matching rates. The bill would also require people on Medicaid to re-enroll every six months, rather than every year under current law, to maintain their coverage. This requirement could make it easier for people to accidentally have a lapse in their coverage, which could make those who are grandfathered in unable to re-enter the program. Based on how quickly people have cycled out of the program in the past, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that two years after the expansion ends, fewer than a third of those who were grandfathered in will remain on Medicaid. By 2024, fewer than 5 percent will remain. While the federal government won’t technically take people’s insurance away from them, the drop in funding will likely force states to make the difficult decisions surrounding eligibility and enrollment.

It’s worth noting that politics are an important variable here, so estimating coverage changes can be more of an art than a science when the actions of state legislatures are involved. It’s likely that states will react to a decline in federal funding by reducing the number of people eligible for Medicaid benefits. They may even do so preemptively, as they know that their funding will soon be reduced. Generally, the law will sharply reduce federal funding for Medicaid, but changes will be determined at the state level as they start to shoulder more of the costs.

A New Funding Model

In addition to phasing out the Medicaid expansion, the AHCA intends to dramatically change the funding system for Medicaid. Currently, Medicaid operates as an entitlement program, meaning that the federal government has an open-ended commitment to pay for a large share of the program’s costs. This means that if more people enroll in the program, as is often the case during economic downturns, the federal government continues to bear much of the increase in costs. Similarly, if the cost of medical care increases significantly, as it has been for several decades, the federal commitment increases accordingly. The entitlement nature of Medicaid has been a target of Republicans for decades; however, this is the first attempt to restructure the program while Republicans maintain control of all three branches of government.

Under the AHCA’s per capita cap system, states will get a certain amount per person enrolled. Those amounts will vary based on the different groups eligible for Medicaid to avoid giving states an incentive to shift enrollment to lower costs. For example, the system is designed to prevent states from being pressured to drop enrollment for the elderly or disabled because they may cost more than children. Each year, the per capita cap will increase along with the changes in medical care services component of the Consumer Price Index, which tracks inflation. The medical services component is known as CPI-M. The per capita system will make funding responsive to enrollment changes, but if certain Medicaid costs outpace the overall cost growth for medical services, states will need to pay the additional amount. Generally speaking, shifting to a per person allotment will amount to a significant cut in overall Medicaid spending. The Congressional Budget Office anticipates that Medicaid costs will grow by 4.4 percent per year while CPI-M will grow at just 3.7 percent annually over the next 10 years.

Additionally, the amended AHCA allows states to opt for a block grant rather than a per person cap. This would give states a grant based on their Medicaid population and would give them a considerable amount of freedom in terms of how to use that funding. Proponents say that this would allow states to experiment with funds in order to find new ways to keep costs down and deploy spending more effectively. However, critics argue that a block grant could mean states could be forced to cover fewer people or services than under the per capita cap model, and considerably more so than the current law. This is because block grants would not respond to increases in eligibility, for example due to a recession, and like the per capita model, it would not respond to cost increases that result from new or more expensive types of care. States could charge enrollees more for their care and they could cap enrollment, which could mean even those who are eligible may not be able to join the program.

How it would Change Medicaid

To illustrate how different the system would be under a per capita cap, economists at the Kaiser Family Foundation ran the numbers for Medicaid outlays from 2001 to 2011 to see how tying funds to CPI-M would affect spending. The KFF finds that federal spending would have been $195 billion below actual spending during that period, which would amount to a drop of about 7 percent. Importantly, these changes have very different consequences for the costs involved in covering the different eligible groups in the Medicaid program. For example, spending tied to CPI-M would have been 6 percent lower than actual spending when it comes to the health care costs for the disabled, but it would have been 15 percent lower for children on the program. In both of these cases, states would have had to shoulder more of the costs, but the difference is considerably larger due to faster growth in child health care costs. There is also a lot of variation between states in terms of what they pay for the average Medicaid enrollee. In fact, spending varies so much per person, that 13 states would have actually seen an increase or no change in their overall funding if it was anchored to CPI-M. However, 37 states and the District of Columbia would have seen their funding drop. And for 26 of those states, the drop relative to existing law would have been larger than 10 percent.

Subsequent amendments to the AHCA–after the initial Congressional Budget Office analysis–increased the per capita spending for the blind, elderly, and disabled to CPI-M plus one percentage point. Those changes amount to an estimated $41 billion in additional spending over the next 10 years, according to revised CBO projections. While $41 billion is a significant increase it may not be in the scope of the overall cuts–instead of reducing Medicaid spending by $880 billion, the amended law is projected to drop spending by $839 billion. While the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates mentioned above are based on CPI-M, and AHCA increases that rate slightly for certain populations, its calculations remain instructive.

Critics of the plan argue that the proposed per capita spending caps would limit states’ ability to respond to changes and could leave them on the hook for a lot of spending if certain costs grow faster than overall medical inflation. And because these caps will effectively result in spending cuts relative to the current law, it will ultimately leave states with less funding while also reducing their responsiveness to cost changes. An example of where this could be a problem is in Medicaid’s role in addressing the opioid epidemic. Many people who joined the program after the Medicaid expansion were previously uninsured and did not have access to addiction treatment. Moreover, the entitlement nature of the program allowed the program to respond to costs related to the epidemic. This is important given the program’s role in treatment–in total, Medicaid and CHIP, the related health insurance program for children, cover thirty percent of the U.S. population dealing with opioid addiction.

Conclusion

The American Health Care Act includes a number of adjustments to the current health care system, but the most wide-ranging might be the proposed cuts and changes to the Medicaid program. President Obama’s health law led to a large increase in Medicaid enrollment and the AHCA would roll much of that back while going even further to change the funding structure of the entire program. Taken together these changes amount to an $839 billion spending cut over the next 10 years and 14 million fewer people with health insurance.

Advocates of the bill argue that it will rein in Medicaid spending levels to a more sustainable course while granting states the ability to experiment and cut costs. Critics argue that it will dramatically increase the number of people without insurance by reducing federal funding for Medicaid while not offering alternatives to those who can’t afford insurance. As Senate Republicans begin to work on their own version of the health care bill, these wide ranging changes to Medicaid will likely be an important part of the debate.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the American Health Care Act Plans to Dramatically Change Medicaid appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, the Canadian province of Ontario announced it would be conducting a pilot program for 4,000 of its residents, guaranteeing each person minimum income even if they did not work. While the idea of giving away “free money” may draw criticism from some, this is not a new concept. In fact, programs similar to this have been around for nearly 50 years, with the ultimate goal of eventually replacing the welfare system as we know it.

Read on further to find out more about guaranteed basic income (otherwise known as universal basic income or basic income), its purpose, the history behind it, and how it might impact the future of welfare programs worldwide.

Guaranteed Basic Income?

So what is guaranteed basic income (GBI)? According to the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), this type of payment has five key characteristics: it is paid in intervals instead of all at once, the medium used allows the recipient to use it any way they want (it is not a Food Stamp card, for example), it is paid on an individual basis only, it is paid without a means test, and those that receive it are not required to work.

Everything else, such as the amount of money in each payment or longevity of payments varies based on the proposal. (In the Ontario test case it does have an income threshold and is paid to only the 4,000 included in the program; the rest of the principles still apply.)

The Purpose of GBI

Guaranteed basic income is not really “free money,” as some may claim; it does serve a few important purposes. An article from Law Streeter Eric Essagof already does a great job of explaining the GBI’s use in fighting poverty. Namely, the income encourages people to keep working, while also ensuring that if their income rises, they won’t automatically lose the benefits they rely on (also known as the “poverty trap”). In addition, in the United States at least, it could streamline a complicated system where someone who needs benefits has to sign up for five different programs that all fall under one welfare system.

There are other potential benefits associated with a guaranteed basic income. If people were assured of at least some income, they might be more likely to go to school for more education or training or even take a chance and start their own business. They could also pursue passions (such as writing, for example) that they are harder to take on when their time is dictated by the necessity to make money. For individual workers, a guaranteed income would also enable them to bargain more effectively with their employers and force employers to agree to concessions in order to keep their workers.

History of GBI

The Ontario GBI pilot program is certainly not the first of its kind; in fact, it is not even the first in Canada. The first program was conducted in the province of Manitoba in the 1970s, and led to societal health improvements while simultaneously not discouraging work participation. The idea for a universal basic income can be traced even further back than that–much further, in fact. In 1797 Thomas Paine, a pamphleteer famous for his work “Common Sense” in support of the American Revolution, stated that in exchange for social consensus among the people, the government should offer yearly payments to its citizens.

Since then there have been numerous debates between thinkers on all sides of the political spectrum, but generally basic income has been viewed as a positive. The accompanying video looks at the evolution of the basic income idea:

This type of program and the philosophy behind it have been embraced outside of Canada as well. The most recent effort was in Finland: earlier this year, the Finnish government selected 2,000 unemployed people at random to begin receiving a guaranteed basic income of €560 for two years instead of the unemployment benefits they had been receiving. The major advantage to this for the participants would be that if they found jobs they would still get to keep their basic income, as opposed to losing unemployment benefits.

Through the Finnish trial, which is still ongoing, the government wants to see whether this type of program can help the country’s ailing economy by encouraging part-time work. In addition to this trial, other similar programs worldwide have proven successful, such as one in Brazil in 2004 and another in Namibia in 2007. There was also a similar cash transfer pilot program in India from 2011 to 2012 that led to increased test scores and improved health in participating villages.

Despite the success of many of these programs, there seems to be a perception that they can only be successful in poorer countries and would never work in an “affluent” country like the United States. However, even the United States has some history with the guaranteed basic income. One of the earliest efforts, the Negative Income Tax Experiments, took place between 1968 and 1990 in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington state, and Colorado. Although these experiments had successful outcomes, they were not politically popular and they lost their momentum. Arguably the most successful experiment so far concerning guaranteed basic income in the U.S. is currently ongoing, and can be found in Alaska.

In 1976, a permanent fund was set up in Alaska to preserve profits made by the oil industry to ensure that the wealth would benefit future populations in the state. This fund was allocated for a basic income program in 1982, and ever since then anyone living in the state for at least six months is eligible to receive a dividend from the state. At its peak in 2008, the fund annually paid out more than $2,000 per resident.

The following video looks at how the program is playing out in Finland and other places:

Future of GBI

With more and more places willing to at least launch guaranteed basic income pilot programs, the future of the measure seems bright. This is especially true given the benefits that it so far has offered, along with the fact that automation is increasingly making many jobs obsolete. Currently, along with Finland, there are also ongoing guaranteed basic income trials occurring in Italy and the Netherlands, with Scotland considering a trial of its own as well.

While a basic income has been advocated by some philosophers, researchers, and other individuals, overall there has not been a tremendous groundswell of support. Even in places where pilot programs have been launched, these are usually only reserved for a few thousand people in countries with tens if not hundreds of millions of citizens. So, if this program has repeatedly proven so successful and could replace faulty welfare programs, why are countries not more willing to try them?

The answer starts with cost. In 2016, Swiss voters rejected a basic income for the country’s citizens, and while Scotland is considering adopting such program, the rest of the UK in general is resistant. This opposition comes even when polls show that up to 64 percent of Europeans approve of a basic income. Part of that, however, might be attributed to how the survey questions were worded, in that they do not mention tax increases necessary to provide that income.

Aside from cost, there are other considerations, such as the fear of automation. Although some fear this trend could lead to a dearth of jobs, some economists are quick to point out this same thesis has been made before with regard to past trends, and has been proven wrong by new innovations that, in fact, created more jobs. Additionally, while some want to use basic income to replace existing safety nets, there is no proof yet that exchanging one for the other is actually superior. Even some of the protections basic income is supposed to offer can be turned on their head, with a basic income convincing some employers they can pay lower wages. There’s also the argument that basic income will lead to people choosing simply not to work. The video below looks at basic income, highlighting some pros and cons:

Conclusion

Guaranteed or universal basic income as an idea has been around for hundreds of years. As an idea put into practice, it has been around for at least around half a century. Moreover, in seemingly every case, pilot programs incorporating basic income guarantees have been successful in a number of measures, from raising GDP and improving test scores to ensuring nutrition. Furthermore, these types of programs have been lauded by leaders on all parts of the political spectrum as everything from a panacea for solving the broken welfare system to necessary in a world that is increasingly automated.

However, for all its success stories, guaranteed income has never become widespread nor long-lasting. The reasons for this apparent contradiction are manifold and run the gamut from high costs to exaggerated benefits. Additionally, for every country that has adopted and embraced the idea there are others that have rejected it.

What is basic income’s outlook then? In a world that is increasingly feeling budget cuts and squeezes, it seems unlikely a major initiative to expand the program is possible, especially given the ascendance of more conservative leaders who rose to power partially on attacks of the social welfare system. Basic income, then, is unlikely to be guaranteed or universal anytime soon, yet continued successful trials indicate that when conditions are more favorable, it could become the norm.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Right to Life, Liberty and a Basic Income?: The History of Guaranteed Basic Income appeared first on Law Street.

In a budget memo released in late March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed eliminating two programs that focus on limiting exposure to lead paint. The suggested proposal would eliminate as much as $16.61 million in funding and over 70 full-time staff members. While the current federal government is looking to get rid of as much federal oversight as possible by transferring powers and responsibilities back to the states, environmental and public health advocates are extremely concerned about the hazardous consequences for citizens–particularly children.

History of Lead and Lead Paint Use

Lead is a naturally-occurring metal found in the Earth’s crust. As one of the earliest discovered metals in human history, lead quickly gained popularity due to its corrosion resistance and low boiling point. In ancient times, “sugar of lead” was used by Roman winemakers as one of the first artificial sweeteners. Up until the 19th century, white lead pigments were widely utilized in paints by artists, as the durability of lead made it an ideal paint additive. Lead-based paint was also used in the U.S. in the 1920s, though several European countries had already banned the use of it.

Usage of lead-based paint started to decline in the 1940s. In 1971, the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) was passed, which aimed to phase out lead paint use in housing built with federal dollars. Lead paint was eventually banned altogether by the American government in 1978.

Lead Poisoning

Lead poisoning occurs when you absorb too much lead by breathing or swallowing it. The neurotoxic effects of lead are substantial, and children are particularly susceptible. When the LBPPPA was passed in 1971, a blood lead level of 60 micrograms per deciliter was considered safe. It wasn’t until 1991 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lowered the “acceptable” blood lead level to nine micrograms per deciliter or less. That number has since been lowered again, and there is still no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe.

“Lead Paint” Courtesy of Mike Mozart : License: (CC BY 2.0)

Lead-based paint, which also includes any lead-contaminated dust, is one of the most common causes of lead poisoning. According to a 2011 national housing survey, more than a third of housing units across the nation contain lead-based paint. Risk of exposure is particularly high in older homes with flaked or chipped paint.

Some neurological and behavioral effects of lead poisoning are considered to be irreversible, and it’s estimated that 2.6 percent of American preschool children have a blood lead concentration over 5 micrograms per deciliter–the current level at which the government recommends public health intervention. Children may experience developmental delay and learning difficulties as a result of lead exposure. Most lead poisoning in children occurs from eating chips and flakes of deteriorating lead-based paint. Children with pica, a disorder which leads to a compulsive appetite to consume non-food items, are especially at risk of ingesting lead.

Lead Paint Programs

In October 1992, Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of Public Law 102-550). Title X amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, and was designed to develop a national strategy to address lead-based paint risks in all housing. Congress promulgated Title X after concerns that low-lead poisoning was widespread amongst American children, particularly those under six years old and minority and low-income populations.

EPA’s Proposed Budget Cuts

On March 31, 2017, a 64-page budget memo covering the EPA’s  2018 fiscal year was released by the Washington Post. The memo showed that officials within the EPA want to eradicate two programs that reduce children’s exposure to lead paint. One of the programs at risk is the Lead Risk Reduction Program. The new budget would slash $2.56 million from its funding and lay off about 73 full-time equivalent employees. This program requires professional remodelers to participate in training to learn safe practices for stripping away lead-based paint in homes. The program was created through an EPA regulation in 2010, which mandated federal certification for renovators.

Lead-based paint programs run by the EPA are also potentially at risk of losing $14.05 million. The EPA has been offering financial assistance to states and tribal jurisdictions, under Section 404(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, since 1994. States and tribal programs are given federal money to address lead-based paint risks. Money is granted to develop or carry out authorized lead-based paint activities programs; authorized lead pre-renovation education programs; or authorized renovation, repair, and paint programs.

While a spokeswoman for the EPA stated that the cuts are intended to give local and state governments the authority and responsibility to fund their own entities, the vast majority of states are unable to do so. Only fourteen states are actually able to operate programs which train contractors in removing lead paint. The rest depend on the federal government to successfully run their programs.

These changes come after a Trump Administration order to reduce the EPA’s overall budget by 31 percent. The EPA has proposed eliminating 25 percent of its employees and scrapping 56 programs including: lead reduction programs, water runoff control, and pesticide safety.

Environmental Racism?

Between 1997 and 2001, the CDC found that 60 percent of children who were reported with confirmed high blood-lead levels were black. Children living and playing in inner cities are more likely to be exposed to lead blowing across playgrounds. A 2015 analysis by the Huffington Post uncovered a strong correlation between high percentages of black populations and high lead poisoning rates. Between 1999 and 2004, black children were 1.6 times more likely to test positive for lead in their blood than white children. In Detroit, where 84 percent of the population is black, eight percent of children tested had elevated blood-lead levels in 2013.

Low-income and minority populations are far more likely to live in neighborhoods with dilapidated homes, thereby elevating their risk of exposure to lead paint. Other legal and environmental advocates note that the cuts to these programs will set the U.S. back decades in preventing lead poisoning and only stifle revenue streams. In other words, the government is likely dooming low-income and minority citizens to toxic living conditions.

CDC Lead Poisoning Prevention

The CDC still has programs to help study and eliminate childhood lead poisoning in America. The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 authorized the CDC to initiate these efforts. As a result, the CDC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was created which helps to develop policies to prevent childhood exposure and poisoning, educate the public and health care providers, provide funding to state and local health departments, and support research to determine the efficacy of prevention efforts.

To date, the CDC has funded nearly 60 childhood lead poisoning prevention programs; developed the childhood blood lead surveillance system, which allows states to report their data to the CDC; expanded public health laboratory capacity; and provided training to public health professionals. The CDC, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EPA, and other agencies have created a federal interagency strategy to achieve the elimination of childhood lead poisoning as a public health issue by 2020.

Conclusion

While lead-based paint was banned almost forty years ago, its persistence in homes across the country is still alive and well to this day. Pre-1980 American housing contains upwards of three million tons of lead in the form of paint. If the EPA strips these lead reduction programs of funding, this nation will continue to have a high risk of lead exposure for children and adults. Since 36 states rely on federal money to keep programs running, the EPA’s proposed budget is establishing a permanent lead-based environment for the country’s most vulnerable populations.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is the Trump EPA Budget Removing Lead Paint Protection Programs? appeared first on Law Street.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has long been considered a critical piece of federal legislation in the Civil Rights Movement. Enacted to prohibit racial discrimination in voting, specifically, it has protected racial minorities from unfair and predatory voting regulations like literacy tests, poll taxes, character tests, and property-ownership requirements, to name a few. In 2013, the Supreme Court decided on a case that struck down key provisions of the act, stating that they were based on old circumstances that had no logical connection to present day.

Since that decision, there have been numerous disputes occurring in states that were once subject to the old provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Lawmakers in several states–many southern–have started passing legislation with more stringent requirements to vote. It begs the question, is the Voting Rights Act still relevant and effective today?

History of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. It was signed in the wake of “Bloody Sunday,” the infamous voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery where 600 people, including current Congressman John Lewis, were brutally beaten by Alabama state troopers. The Voting Rights Act was meant to eliminate discriminatory election practices, as states were still resistant to enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment, which declared that the “right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Section 2 of the act mimicked the language of the Fifteenth Amendment by applying a nationwide prohibition on literacy tests to deny citizens of the right to vote. Moreover, the act also contained other special provisions that only applied to particular jurisdictions. Under Section 5, the act required that specific jurisdictions which attempted to pass new voting practices or procedures needed to receive “preclearance” from the Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 4(b) of the act defines eligible districts as those which had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964 and less than a fifty percent turnout for the 1964 presidential election.

For years, the Supreme Court continually upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, including Section 5. This included thwarting racial vote dilution through discriminatory annexations, redistricting plans, election method changes, and changes in voter registration standards and procedures. The section was originally enacted for five years, but has been renewed continually since its enactment.

Shelby County v. Holder

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. The case, which was out of Shelby County, Alabama, concerned both Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Shelby County sued Eric Holder, the Attorney General at the time, arguing that Section 4(b) and Section 5 were facially unconstitutional, and sought a permanent injunction against their enforcement.

After making its way through the lower courts, it finally reached the Supreme Court. The justices had to decide whether the renewal of Section 5 under Section 4(b) restrictions exceeded Congress’ authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in turn violating the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 opinion, that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. Essentially, the Court stated that the current formula conflicted with equal sovereignty of the states, as the disparate treatment of states was based on forty-year-old facts, which had no relationship to present day. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Our country has changed and while any discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation is passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

In Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion he argued that Section 5 was also unconstitutional, contending that the blatant discrimination against certain voters that Section 5 was intended to protect against no longer existed. According to Justice Thomas, Congress cannot justify the burden of Section 5 without blatant discrimination.

Current Voting Rights Disputes

Since the court’s decision in 2013, many former preclearance states in the South are now embroiled in legal challenges surrounding voting laws. In Texas, the federal district court recently ruled that Senate Bill 14, which required voters to show a form of photo ID before casting a vote, had a discriminatory effect. Senate Bill 14 was passed in 2011, but was blocked by the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act. After Shelby County v. Holder, Texas officials said they planned to enforce the law.

Lawmakers in North Carolina passed a photo ID requirement, and curbed early-voting hours, same-day voter registration, and limited other registration and voting options. This was eventually struck down by the Fourth Circuit, which noted that the provisions targeted African-Americans with “almost surgical provision.” The Supreme Court declined to stay the ruling in a 4-4 split after Justice Antonin Scalia passed away last year. North Carolina has asked the court to hear the case fully, and now that the court has added Justice Neil Gorsuch it’s possible that it could grant the petition for review.

Just recently, a lawsuit has been brought by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on behalf of five organizations regarding the special election slated to take place in June 2017 in Georgia to replace Republican representative Tom Price. Since the Democrat, Jon Ossoff, failed to achieve the fifty percent threshold needed to win outright, a special election will decide his fate, against Republican Karen Handel. The suit alleges that the Georgia law disenfranchises citizens by requiring voters to have registered for the first round to vote in the runoff. Consequently, since the law means that voters would have had to register in March 2017 to vote in the runoff (before the first election even occurred), a large number of Georgians may be completely stopped from voting in the June 2017 election.

It is Still Relevant?

Just four short years ago, the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder was not hesitant to point out how key sections of the Voting Rights Act were not relevant to modern times. The majority opinion concluded that since the act had worked so well in preventing racial discrimination, it was no longer needed. However, given the numerous laws that have sprung up since the court’s decision, it seems that the act is just as necessary today.

After the act’s initial enactment, it had an instant effect on decreasing racial discrimination in voting. Not only did the number of registered African-American voters increase substantially, but the number of African-Americans elected to office also grew. Moreover, economic growth occurred because of the act. A study of 40 North Carolina counties covered by the act found that those counties experienced larger growth in African-American incomes, occupational status, and attracted more revenue from county and other government sources.

Now, without Section 4(b) in effect to determine which jurisdictions must receive approval of any voting law changes, Section 5 has now become relatively inoperative. Thus, this has allowed states to change laws and policies without any federal oversight.

Conclusion

After Shelby County v. Holder, many former preclearance states jumped at the opportunity to pass more restrictive voting requirements. While lower courts have found subsequent legislation to contain discriminatory intent or effect, the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on them. Thus, with a full court now in place after Justice Gorsuch’s swearing-in, the legacy of the Voting Rights Act is still up for debate.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Still Effective? appeared first on Law Street.

For the last several years, Venezuela has been plagued by uncertainty following the death of its former enigmatic leader Hugo Chavez. This is a situation that has only been exacerbated by the steep drop in oil prices. Recently, the crisis in Venezuela reached such a low point that current President Nicolas Maduro accused the country’s bakers of waging an unannounced war on its people through price gouging. Although the bakers of Venezuela are clearly not the major issue plaguing the country, real problems certainly exist. Read on to find out how the country’s leadership and its economic decisions have brought a nation rich in natural resources into a political and economic crisis.

History of Venezuela

Venezuela’s first interaction with the western world began right at the end of the 15th century, around 1498, when Christopher Columbus first landed there. The actual colonization of what would become Venezuela began in 1521 by the Spanish. In 1810, the country declared its independence, and in 1829, it broke away from Gran Colombia to become its own independent nation. In 1945, the country threw out its military leader in a coup and elected its first democratic government. However, that government’s reign was short-lived, with the military taking back over after another coup in 1948.

Democratic government was restored in 1958 and the first peaceful transfer of power between leaders occurred in 1964. Venezuela then rode high oil prices throughout the 1970s and 80s until prices finally started to lag. This development forced then-President Carlos Perez to negotiate for relief with the International Monetary Fund–negotiations that ultimately led to riots in the streets. Following Perez’s eventual impeachment on corruption charges, Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998.

Venezuela Under Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez eventually rose to the presidency following a failed coup attempt that he led in 1992. After he was captured, Chavez delivered a speech on national television that garnered him popularity among average, disaffected Venezuelans. This popularity was essential to Chavez’s eventual pardon and release from prison in 1994. It also positioned him as an anti-establishment force, which would rocket him to the presidency in 1998.

Upon his initial election, Chavez was extremely popular among Venezuelans. He used that public support to give himself extraordinary control over all three branches of government. However, many of those moves, along with his plans to imitate Cuba’s style of government and his decision to antagonize the United States, alienated Venezuela from the West. Those moves, coupled with efforts to gain more power, caused his approval ratings to sink from as high as 80 percent to a low of 30 percent.

Dissatisfaction reached the point where, in 2002, Chavez was briefly removed from office in another coup. However, he quickly returned to power and later gained greater control over the local oil industry following a large-scale strike. Using these new resources and buoyed again by high oil prices, he offered citizens lavish social programs to help ensure his reelection in 2006. In 2009, he passed constitutional reforms to remove term limits and ensure that he could continue leading the country. This move also enabled him to crack down on dissent. Chavez’s power consolidation took a secondary role in 2011, when he went to Cuba for cancer treatment. Chavez would ultimately die from cancer-related effects in 2013.

Post-Chavez

Chavez was succeeded by loyalist Nicolas Maduro. Maduro, a career politician who had been elected as Venezuela’s vice president in 2014, went to great lengths to further Chavez’s ideals. Upon ascending to the presidency, Maduro hoped to solidify his grip on power by arresting opponents. This approach seemed to be working, especially when he garnered the support of the military until oil prices began to fall once more.

Falling Oil Prices

In 2014, global oil prices began to plummet from a high of over $100 a barrel to below $30 a barrel. Venezuela was hit especially hard because roughly half of the government’s revenue comes from the oil industry. While the country set up a fund to save surplus revenues during the oil boom of the 1990s, the fund was drained during Chavez’s reign, as he used it to fund social welfare programs and help ensure his reelection. The accompanying video explains many of the issues plaguing Venezuela following and as a result of Chavez’s regime:

Venezuela’s economy became so dependent on high oil prices, that countries grew less willing to invest there as they started to doubt its ability to pay them back. An example of this occurred in 2016, when the Chinese Development Bank was one of only a few institutions willing to continue lending directly to the South American nation, but it did so with many more conditions than in years past. This also had the added effect of reducing Venezuela’s influence among its neighbors, as it can no longer use its oil exports as leverage. Even if oil prices rebound, Venezuela is still likely to face serious trouble, as its state-run oil company will have so much debt that it could have trouble paying for further oil exploration.

Country in Free Fall

In a country where 95 percent of all exports are oil-related, it is clear how devastating a dramatic drop in prices can be. This drop led the government to make dramatic currency interventions that have sparked massive bouts of inflation and triggered supply shortages for essentials like medicine and even food. When the crisis first began developing, President Maduro denied that there was even a problem to begin with, although he eventually issued food vouchers in an attempt to prevent people from going hungry. Nevertheless, more Venezuelans are increasingly going without food and malnutrition rates are rising. The government itself cannot afford to even import more food as it is out of money.

On top of the food and humanitarian crises–which are largely a result of economic mismanagement and fluctuations in international oil markets–are unpopular political moves by President Maduro to consolidate his power. In March, loyalists who were selected by President Maduro on the Venezuelan high court chose to dissolve the National Assembly. The power of the Assembly was to be transferred to the courts under Maduro who, critics argue, effectively became a dictator. While the ruling was revised days later, much about the rule of law in Venezuela remains in question, particularly given that the high court had already been ruling against the National Assembly’s attempts to rein in Maduro.

These moves, and the sheer desperation experienced by many in the country, have led to mass protests. In recent weeks, thousands of people have taken to the streets in Caracas, the capital, to protest and demand new elections. However, these protests were met with force both from police and paramilitary groups supported by the Maduro government known as colectivos. The harsh crackdown by the government has led to international condemnation from nearby countries such as Peru and global powers like the United States. It has also spurred calls for more mass protests across cities in Venezuela. Nevertheless, Maduro remains in power and enjoys some support among his base and by those who believe the actions of protesters are not the appropriate way to bring about change.

The video below looks at recent protests:

Conclusion

Venezuela, like many countries with a colonial legacy, has struggled to create the vibrant and dynamic economy needed to be competitive in the global economy. For most of its independent history, it has been ruled by military dictatorships with a few years of democratic governance in between–but these temporary civilian governments have been undone by a perpetual series of coups. This inability to establish a competent government and the country’s over-reliance on oil for its economy held the potential for disaster.

That disaster came when oil prices bottomed out, leaving the country unable to feed its citizens or meet their basic needs. Naturally, this has led to a crisis of confidence in current President Nicholas Madero, successor to the charismatic and extremely controversial Hugo Chavez. Chavez and Maduro both ascended to power on the notion of cleaning out the old, corrupt government institutions and installing something more responsive to real people’s concerns. However, the actual results of their decisions led to unsustainable social programs that plunged the country into debt as oil prices fell. Now it seems that most Venezuelans want a new government and most of all, a new president.

How the situation with Madero plays out is critical to the country’s future. If protesters and the government can reach a political resolution and rebuild the government’s rapidly decaying institutions, there is hope for a major turnaround. On the other hand, if Madero continues to crack down on dissent and refuses to address the humanitarian crises taking over the country, Venezuela could be on a course for even more chaos. Even if a resolution emerges, the country will need to diversify its economy to manage its reliance on oil. Given its past failures to do so, that will not prove to be an easy task.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Behind the Crisis in Venezuela? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a classic concern in Washington, a seemingly annual potential: a government shutdown. Now, talk of a government shutdown looms over the Trump Administration and the 115th U.S. Congress. This week, Congressional leaders are scheduled to send President Donald Trump a spending bill, but one that notably lacks many of his most inflammatory campaign promises. It doesn’t contain any money for Trump’s border wall and it doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood, among other unfulfilled promises. So, if Trump vetoes the bill, the federal government won’t have the money to function and it will trigger a government shutdown. But what actually is a government shutdown? What does it mean? How often does it happen? Read on to find out.

What is a “Government Shutdown?”

Essentially a “government shutdown” happens when, for whatever reason, a spending bill is not passed. There are multiple ways this could happen. For example, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress may not be able to agree on what measures should be included. Or, the president could veto the bill. But either way, it means that federal agencies don’t have the ability to spend money–meaning they can’t pay their employees or carry out a large chunk of their tasks. That’s deemed a “shutdown.”

Is there anything Congress can do to avoid a shutdown? 

Well, obviously passing a spending bill (which is really a collection of appropriations bills in an omnibus) is the optimal course of action. But that’s not the only option, because of course, various factions in the government disagree far more often than the government actually shuts down. That’s because Congress has the ability to pass something called a “continuing resolution”–a quick stopgap measure that gives them more time to figure out the spending bill. A continuing resolution is intended to fund the government at current levels until a permanent solution is figured out.

There’s also a combined continuing resolution/omnibus solution, which would fund certain, mostly uncontroversial agencies, while also temporarily funding the controversial issues. This measure, which is called a “CRomnibus,” would allow Congress to further debate on the controversial issues, but not wrap up the rest of the agencies’ and government’s funding as well.

When has the government shut down in the past?

It actually happens relatively frequently. Since 1976, which was the first year that the budgeting system as it now stands was implemented, the government has shut down–partially or fully–18 times. Many of those shutdowns were incredibly quick and didn’t really affect anything, others were longer and more complicated. Note that many of these cases include multiple moving parts, but here are the basic gists of what stopped at least some of the cogs in the federal government from working:

• There was a shutdown for 10 days in 1976 during President Gerald Ford’s presidency. He vetoed a spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress, claiming that the spending for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare wasn’t reigned in enough.
• The government shut down three times during President Jimmy Carter’s presidency over the abortion debate alone. The shutdowns, which all occurred in 1977, were 12 days, eight days, and eight days respectively. The House wanted to continue to prohibit Medicaid funding from going to abortions; the Senate wanted to loosen the restrictions to include more exceptions.
• In 1978, also during Carter’s presidency, there was an 18-day shutdown when Carter vetoed part of a defense bill, claiming that funding for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was wasteful, among other issues.
• There was another shutdown during the Carter presidency in 1979, for 11 days, again related to abortion. The Senate refused to let the House give itself a pay increase without making federal abortion funding restrictions looser.
• In 1981, during President Ronald Reagan’s time in office, Reagan vetoed the spending bill after it fell $2 billion short of the cuts he wanted to make, sparking a two-day shutdown.
• The next year, still during Reagan’s presidency, there was a one-day shutdown, largely just because the House and Senate didn’t pass a spending bill in time.
• Again in 1982, Reagan threatened to veto a spending bill that set aside money for job creation, while neglecting to fund a defense program his administration saw as a priority. This led to a three-day shutdown.
• In 1983, the House passed a bill that gave more money to education, but cut foreign affairs spending and defense spending. Reagan didn’t like any of that. The resulting debate led to another three-day shutdown.
• In 1984, there was another short shutdown of two days, again because Congress wanted to fund (and to not fund) certain provisions against Reagan’s wishes, including a water projects package and civil rights measure. That led to another one-day shutdown when Congress and the White House failed to get everything together after a three-day extension.
• In 1986, there was a one-day shutdown when, once again, the Democrat-controlled House and Republican President Reagan disagreed over provisions in a funding bill.
• The last shutdown of Reagan’s presidency occurred for a day in 1987 when the president and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t agree on whether or not to fund the Nicaraguan “Contra” militants.
• There was a three-day shutdown in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush. Bush vetoed a measure that didn’t contain a deficit reduction plan.
• In 1995 there was a five-day shutdown, when President Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution by the Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time. It had plenty of things he didn’t want in it, including raising Medicare premiums.
• From December 1995 to January 1996, there was a 21-day shutdown that again pitted Clinton against the then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Much of this shutdown involved semantics–Clinton was using Office of Management and Budget numbers to balance his budget, while Congress insisted he use the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers.
• The most recent government shutdown, in 2013, under President Barack Obama, lasted 16 days. Obamacare was the crux of the issue–the Republican-controlled House didn’t want to fund the bill, the Democrat-controlled Senate did.

What Actually Happens During a Shutdown?

Much of what happens during a government shutdown is dictated by the Antideficiency Act, a law originally enacted in 1884 and amended in 1950. According to Andrew Cohen of the Atlantic it is:

a collection of statutory and administrative provisions, really–that forbid federal officials from entering into financial obligations for which they do not have funding, like paying the salaries of their employees or buying the things they need to run the government. It’s also the law that wisely permits certain ‘essential’ government functions–like the military and the courts, for example–to keep operating even in the absence of authorized legislative funding.

So, one of the most notable effects of a government shutdown is on federal government employees. Essentially, government workers are split into a few different groups–those who are “essential” to keep daily life in the United States functioning, and those who aren’t. Those who aren’t include people who operate our national parks and large chunks of lower and mid-level staff at agencies and offices. They are furloughed, without pay, until whenever the government shutdown ends. Workers who stay on probably don’t get their pay on time. And a common point of contention is that members of Congress are still paid, even if there is a shutdown. It was estimated by Standard & Poor’s that the 2013 shutdown cost the economy approximately $24 billion.

Other effects of a shutdown can include delayed Social Security payments, no processing of travel documents like new passports, no processing of applications for things like Medicare, research for certain agencies like the CDC, and certain types of federal loans end up frozen. However, the TSA, Post Office, and active military are all certain to continue functioning.

Of course, some areas are more affected than others. Washington D.C., as a city that is in many ways controlled by the federal government, is pretty hard hit. Check out this video from the New York Times to learn more:

Conclusion

A “government shutdown” sounds quite a bit scarier than it actually is. It doesn’t signal anarchy, or the apocalypse, but rather a temporary (but certainly annoying) halt to some of our government’s day-to-day functions. That being said, it’s not great for those who are particularly affected–like the hundreds of thousands of workers who suddenly have to go for an indeterminate period without pay. It costs the economy quite a bit of money. And it disrupts an already tumultuous funding process for the federal government. It’s unclear when the next shutdown will be, but at this point it seems like it’s become a regular factor in Washington.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does a “Government Shutdown” Entail? appeared first on Law Street.

In February, the United Nations declared a famine in South Sudan and estimated that 100,000 people faced immediate risk of starvation. This was the first declared famine in six years; the last was in Somalia in 2011. While South Sudan has long been struggling, the question is, how did an oil-rich state and one that had finally gained independence from Sudan after years of fighting, suddenly find itself in this situation? Read on to learn more about the nation’s tumultuous history, the aftermath of its independence, and where it stands today.

The History of Sudan

Sudan emerged as an extension of Egyptian society in 1500 B.C. and shared many of Egypt’s customs after the decline of ancient Egypt. Critical to the current conflict, Christianity was introduced to Sudan beginning in the 4th century, followed closely by Islam. For the next several centuries, the country fell under the sway of various Muslim or Egyptian rulers until it finally became a province of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Not long after, control of Sudan passed to the British after fierce fighting between Britain and local religious leaders.

Ultimately, British machine guns and artillery won out and Sudan was eventually brought to heel under a combined British-Egyptian rule. For approximately the first fifty years of the 20th century, the two sides continued this arrangement, with occasional conflict, as Egypt wanted to rule both Egypt and Sudan as one united country. These protests were ignored and ultimately, after Egyptian consent, Sudan became an independent country in 1956.

The Emergence of South Sudan

In 2011, 99 percent of voters in a referendum decided that the 10 southern-most states of Sudan should break away and become South Sudan. While the final decision ended with a clean break, getting to that point was an arduous process. In fact, the referendum followed on the heels of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, an agreement that finally ended a civil war that had lasted for several decades. In total, more than 1.5 million people died in the war and another 4 million were displaced because of the war.

The Civil War started in 1955, before what would become Sudan had even gained independence, when army officers from the south of Sudan mutinied. The officers rose up out of fear that once control of Sudan had passed from Egypt and Great Britain that the Muslim majority in the north, the new government, would impose Islamic Law on the country and promote an Arab identity. The initial conflict ended in 1972 with the Addis Ababa Agreement that granted the south limited autonomy. However, the government reneged on its agreement in 1983 leading to another outbreak in fighting that lasted until 2005. The specific issue was the government in the north’s decision to place Sudan under Sharia Law. While the country was approximately 70 percent Muslim, the other 30 percent was composed of Christians and those who followed traditional indigenous religions. In addition to the religious divide, there is also an ethnic divide between Arabs in the north and black Africans in the south.

In addition to the ethnic conflict that started much of the fighting, a major issue preventing peace was how to divide the country’s oil. Although the south has most of the oil reserves, the north had the pipelines and the port to the Red Sea. In the 2005 agreement, the two sides decided to divide profits equally, however, that arrangement ended in 2011 with South Sudan’s independence. Furthermore, while the 2005 agreement paved the way for southern independence it left many conflicts unresolved. The video below looks at Sudan’s modern history and why it has been plagued by conflict.

The Aftermath

Following the implementation of the peace deal in 2005, South Sudan went through a six-year period of autonomy before it voted for independence in 2011. The initial decision for independence was greeted with enthusiasm due to the promise of a large supply of oil and an end to decades of fighting. However, the agreement also left key elements undecided. Notably, it failed to decisively divide up oil resources evenly and did not extinguish ethnic tensions.

The oil issue grew out of the fact that the new South Sudan had most of the oil, while Sudan had most of the transporting and refining capabilities. This issue also bled into the ethnic conflict as some of the disparate groups were armed by Sudan in an effort to weaken South Sudan from the inside, sparking sudden conflicts. These clashes, especially the one between the two largest ethnic groups, led by the president and vice president, sparked yet another outbreak of civil war, this time within South Sudan. Additionally, there remains conflict between South Sudan and Sudan in various border regions. One of the contested areas, Abyei, was not able to participate in the original 2011 referendum vote, leaving questions about its status in the conflict. Many of these border regions also have considerable amounts of oil.

The following video looks at South Sudan at independence and many of the issues that have plagued it since:

South Sudan’s Civil War

A civil war within South Sudan, following its independence, came about in December 2013. At that time the president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, and the vice president, Riek Machar, were engaged in political infighting. Ultimately, Machar was removed from his role as vice president and fled the country.

What started as a political dispute quickly divided the country along ethnic lines. The Dinka, one of the two largest ethnic groups in South Sudan, supported the president, while the Nuer, the other major ethnic group, supported the ousted vice president. As the ethnic conflict escalated, human rights violations ranging from rape to murder have been documented. Because of the violence, many farmers have been unable to tend their fields and grow their crops, which has led to the food disaster that is now considered a famine.

As many as 100,000 people are in jeopardy of starving because of this famine. In addition, another 5.5 million could face food shortages as soon as July. Making the situation even more difficult, annual inflation has risen to 425 percent, making it nearly impossible to buy food. Aid agencies, which have been making up for most of the shortfall, face significant obstacles as the conflict escalates. More than 80 aid workers have already been killed in the conflict. The situation has gotten so bad that people in the affected areas are hiding and foraging in swamps by day and then tending to their crops, at risk of animal attack, by night while the soldiers sleep.

South Sudan Today

To counter the ongoing turmoil, the international community has tried to intervene. The United Nations Security Council has authorized over 13,000 peacekeepers to be stationed in the country and given them the power to use force to protect civilians. These efforts though, have been continuously undetermined by the fluid situation on the ground, with all sides, including the government, involved in the violence. The international community has taken other steps as well, such as sanctions leveled by the United States on the leaders of both sides of the conflict.

To avoid further sanctions, President Kiir agreed to a peace deal with former vice president and rebel-Leader Machar in August 2015 with the support of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. As part of this agreement, Machar returned to his old position in April of 2016. However, the deal quickly unraveled with both sides violating the agreement causing Machar to flee once again, plunging the country back into war.

With the ongoing conflict and with tens of thousands of displaced people unable to return home, the situation in South Sudan has become increasingly bleak. As of April, the South Sudanese refugee camp in Uganda, Bidi Bidi, has eclipsed Kenya’s Dadaab camp as the world’s largest, with over 270,000 South Sudanese living there. Moreover, the mass exodus shows no signs of ending soon. In other war-torn areas such as Syria, outward migration has effectively slowed, but in South Sudan, the number has gone up dramatically. South Sudan’s refugee crisis is currently the fastest growing one in the world, although it is not the largest in terms of total numbers.

This refugee flow is only likely to continue with yet another outbreak of violence between the government and the main insurgent force flaring up in mid-April. This comes in the wake of more aid workers being displaced and unable to offer desperately needed assistance to the local population.

Conclusion

South Sudan had to overcome approximately a half-century of conflict just to become a nation. In the process, more than a million people have died and millions more were displaced. Upon its independence, the future looked bright for the new nation. It was home to a large supply of oil and it appeared to have finally put its destructive conflicts behind it.

However, appearances were not what they seemed. Conflicts erupted externally in the form of border disputes with Sudan and internally among the nation’s many ethnic groups. The country’s two largest ethnic groups took opposing sides in a political dispute between the president and vice president that once more plunged the nation into a civil war. The consequences of this conflict have been devastating, with any hope of economic success dashed and even the provision of the most basic means of survival thrown into doubt.

Despite being the youngest nation on earth, South Sudan already finds itself at a critical crossroads. Its government is locked in an internal struggle, thousands of U.N. troops are already on the ground, and millions of its citizens sit in refugee camps ringing its borders. To be successful, the country’s path seems clear: reconcile the various ethnic groups, make lasting peace with Sudan, and let people get back to their lives. Finding a way to make these things happen, however, will be a much more difficult process.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turmoil in South Sudan, the World’s Newest Nation appeared first on Law Street.

After Republicans’ first attempt to swiftly repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act failed, President Donald Trump finds himself in a difficult position: he has to administer a law that he has frequently called a “disaster.” The question now becomes: will President Trump and Tom Price, his Secretary of Health and Human Services, try as hard as possible to support the law that’s already on the books or will they take steps to undermine it?

As Republicans continue to try to broker a compromise between their more moderate and conservative wings–and there’s at least some evidence they are making progress–questions about the existing law may need to be answered before any new legislation makes its way to the president’s desk. While many of these pending decisions are somewhat small or would require a long time before taking effect, there’s one relatively arcane component of the Affordable Care Act–cost-sharing subsidy payments–that could swiftly pull the rug out from under the health insurance exchanges that about 12 million people rely on for health insurance. Read on for an overview of the Affordable Care Act exchanges and to see how a pending lawsuit gives President Trump unique control over the fate of a major part of his predecessor’s landmark accomplishment.

An Overview of the Health Insurance Exchanges

The Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, is an extraordinarily long piece of legislation that touched almost every part of the U.S. health care system–an industry that accounts for nearly one-fifth of the entire economy. One of the law’s primary goals was to lower the number of people without health insurance coverage. To do this, the law dramatically increased the number of people on Medicaid–the government-run health insurance program for low-income Americans–by expanding outreach and eligibility to a larger number of Americans. It also created federal and state-run health insurance exchanges on which people who do not get health insurance through their employer and also don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid can buy health insurance. While most of the coverage gains came from expanding Medicaid, creating regulated exchanges and offering subsidies made health insurance available to groups who previously did not have access to it on the individual market, notably those with preexisting conditions.

Individuals could buy health insurance before the Affordable Care Act’s passage, but insurers could charge people with chronic health conditions a lot more for insurance and could even deny coverage outright. The ACA introduced significant marketplace reforms to ensure that all insurance plans offered on the exchanges cover a minimum set of services, known as the 10 essential benefits, and prevented companies from denying anyone coverage because of a preexisting condition. The law also included provisions that prohibited charging people higher premiums based on certain characteristics like gender or health status. For other characteristics, the law set specific ranges at which companies can use to price premiums. For example, companies can charge no more than three times as much for their elderly customers as they can for their youngest customers.

The law had a number of provisions to try to make the marketplaces stable for insurers and consumers. One of the most discussed (and controversial) market stabilization components of the law is the individual mandate–the requirement that everyone get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. To help make insurance affordable for consumers, the ACA provided premium subsidies to people making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty line. The premium credits are tied to a benchmark plan to ensure that an individual or a family’s healthcare spending is capped at a certain percentage of their income. This means that if insurance premiums change dramatically from one year to the next then the subsidy will also adjust for those who are eligible. Finally, the law also had several stabilization programs that sought to reduce the risk that insurers would face when beginning to sell plans on the new exchanges.

Cost-Sharing Reductions

One of the many ways the law sought to make care affordable for low-income Americans is the cost-sharing reduction requirements. The cost-sharing reduction provision is relatively small in the overall scope of the law, but remains an important component because it addressed costs that people face when going to get care. In addition to premiums, health insurance plans typically include several forms of cost-sharing, which involve out-of-pocket costs when someone visits the doctor or fills a prescription. The Affordable Care Act sought to reduce these costs for people with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level. People who are eligible for cost-sharing reductions must enroll in silver insurance plans, the middle tier plans, on the insurance exchanges. Based on an eligible consumer’s income, insurers adjust the value of the plan to ensure that they cover a certain percentage of all costs. The government then provides a subsidy to insurers so they recoup those costs. A typical silver plan has an actuarial value of 70 percent, meaning that the insurance company will, on average, pay 70 percent of the cost for covered services–the other 30 percent typically comes through different cost-sharing. In plans eligible for cost-sharing reductions, the actuarial value of a silver plan increases based how close a person or family is to the federal poverty level. For the lowest income Americans who buy insurance on the exchanges, the actuarial value goes as high as 94 percent.

This year there are 7.1 million Americans who have plans with cost-sharing reductions, accounting for 58 percent of all plans on the exchanges. The total cost of the subsidies provided by the government is about $7 billion each year. This process–in which insurers are required to reduce cost-sharing for certain low-income customers and then the government subsidizes the insurers–is key to understanding the current challenge, which we’ll get to in the next section.

It’s worth noting that the law was not implemented exactly as it was designed, as legal and legislative obstacles played a significant role in the way the law took effect. Additionally, while the law has many provisions to reduce the burden on insurers and consumers, there are a number of local marketplaces that are particularly fragile at the moment. Several insurers have pulled out of the exchanges and there are several counties where people buying insurance on the health exchanges have only one insurance plan to pick from. At the same time, there are several places where the exchanges have been particularly successful–where strong competition between insurers has created a stable market for consumers. Debating the overall success of the Affordable Care Act and what should be done going forward is clearly important, but that is beyond the scope of this piece. What is clear is that the law led to a significant legal and political backlash, which brings us to the next part of the story.

The Lawsuit

The passage of the Affordable Care Act sparked a number of legal challenges, several of which have made their way to the Supreme Court. But the lawsuit that is the most important right now is the one challenging the cost-sharing subsidies. Interestingly, this lawsuit didn’t come from private citizens, small businesses, or religious institutions, but from another branch of the government.

In November 2014, Republicans in the House of Representatives filed a lawsuit against the executive branch to challenge two aspects of the ACA’s implementation. The lawsuit first argued that President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by delaying the implementation of the employer mandate–a requirement that companies of a certain size must provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine. Second, it claimed that the Obama Administration’s payments to insurers for the cost-sharing subsidies were illegal because the money had not been properly appropriated. A federal judge dismissed the first claim but allowed the second to proceed.

The Arguments

Both sides of the lawsuit agree that money cannot be spent unless it is properly appropriated, but the dispute focuses on the question of whether or not the current law amounts to an appropriation. House Republicans argue that although the ACA created the subsidy, the payments are not linked to a specific appropriation. Although the law calls for the payments to be paid, it doesn’t specify a source for the payments. This is not the case for the law’s premium subsidies, which are paid out in the form of refundable tax credits and are appropriated by the statute that allows the IRS to make refund payments. When the issue first emerged, President Obama asked Congress for a specific appropriation but Congress declined. After the lawsuit began, the Obama Administration argued that the same appropriation that is used for the premium subsidies can be used to make the subsidy payments to insurers.

Nicholas Bagly, a law professor and health care expert at the University of Michigan, has studied the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and argues that the Republicans’ lawsuit has a point. The justification used by the Obama Administration doesn’t quite make sense because tax credits are not the same thing as direct payments to insurance companies. As Bagley puts it, “It’s an enormous stretch to read an appropriation that governs refunds for individual taxpayers as also covering payments to insurers.” However, he also argues that the Republican lawsuit should have been thrown out by the courts in the first place. The White House and Congress are two coequal branches of government and they have the authority to resolve the dispute between themselves. If Congress has a problem with something the president is doing, it can pass a law that stops him from doing it. Congress could also pass a law appropriating the funding for the cost-sharing payments and the problem would be resolved. Allowing one branch to take an issue with another branch to the courts could set a problematic precedent as political disputes should ideally be resolved by elected officials.

What’s Next and Why It’s Important

After the district judge’s initial ruling–which allowed the cost-sharing subsidy claim to continue but dismissed the employer mandate claim–a separate ruling in 2016 ordered President Obama to stop making the payments. Obama immediately appealed the decision and the judge stayed her ruling so the White House could appeal. This means that right now, if President Trump decided to stop reimbursing insurers for cost-sharing reductions, he could drop the appeal and the judge’s injunction blocking the payments would stand. Doing so would have massive consequences for the fate of the health insurance exchanges. This is also something that the president has publicly considered, but the fate of these payments remains unclear.

On April 10, the Department of Health and Human Services told the New York Times that it planned to continue making the cost-sharing payments to insurers while the lawsuit was being litigated. But a few days later, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said that he would consider withholding the payments as a way to force Democrats to negotiate on health care legislation. This was, in effect, a threat to undermine the insurance markets as a way to force a deal. Democrats have also reportedly considered demanding a specific appropriation for the payments for their support in a funding bill that will be needed before the end of April to avoid a government shutdown. While the politics of the issue remain unclear, the ultimate effects that ending the payments would have are fairly clear.

Consequences for Health Insurance Markets

Ending the cost-sharing subsidy payments would have dramatic consequences for the individual health insurance market. Ending the payments would not change the fact that insurers who sell plans on the exchanges would still need to provide cost-sharing reductions for customers who qualify–whether they get reimbursed by the government or not. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan organization that analyzes health care policy, estimated that average premiums would need to increase by 19 percent to offset the lack of government funding. These estimates varied by location, ranging from a projected 9 percent increase in North Dakota to a 27 percent in Mississippi. Alternatively, insurers may simply leave the exchanges altogether.

After several insurance companies had difficulty turning a profit in the early years of the ACA’s implementation, several companies decided to stop selling plans in many markets. The current uncertainty surrounding the cost-sharing payments and health care policy more generally, could lead many companies to pull out from the exchanges. Trade groups have already started to warn lawmakers that blocking the payments may cause insurers to drop out of the markets. By June 21, all health insurers will need to decide whether or not they plan to sell insurance on the ACA exchanges next year. This year there are more than 960 counties in the country with just one insurer offering to sell plans on the exchanges, and if companies decide to pull out, several markets could collapse altogether.

Conclusion

As Republicans continue their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President Trump may need to make decisions about the current law before he has an opportunity to sign a new law overhauling it. Arguably the most pressing of these challenges is what to do about the lawsuit challenging the cost-sharing subsidy payments. Trump could decide to stop the pending lawsuit and block the payments almost immediately, throwing exchanges that provide insurance to 12 million Americans into chaos. He could continue the current policy–allowing the appeal to move forward and payments to be made to insurers–or he could ask Congress to appropriate the required funding and resolve the issue once and for all.

In the meantime, the subsidy payments will continue to play an important role in legislative negotiations, particularly the funding bill needed to keep the government open past April 28. Meanwhile, insurers must deal with uncertainty as they decide if they want to continue to sell plans on the state and federal exchanges. While much remains in question, the end result will largely be the product of Congressional politics. Both parties seem to think they have the upper hand–assuming the other will be blamed if subsidy payments are blocked and insurers hike premium prices or leave the markets altogether.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Behind the Lawsuit that Could Upend the Affordable Care Act Exchanges appeared first on Law Street.

The debate over government funding of Planned Parenthood is seemingly never-ending. During last month’s controversy over repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, talk of defunding Planned Parenthood–essentially ensuring that Medicaid funds cannot go to the health provider service–was a common refrain. Defunding Planned Parenthood, advocates say, would ensure that taxpayer money is not used for abortions.

People who disagree with defunding Planned Parenthood have a consistent response to that proposal–that federal money cannot be used for abortion services because of something called “the Hyde Amendment.” Read on to learn what the Hyde Amendment is, its history, and what exactly it requires.

The History of the Hyde Amendment

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade. With a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that a woman’s right to an abortion is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. That decision legalized abortion in the United States, although states still have control over certain aspects–like at what point in a woman’s pregnancy abortion can be restricted.

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States set up the debate between pro-choice and pro-life advocates that is still being waged today. Between 1973 and 1976 various attempts to prevent Medicaid funding from being used for abortions were introduced and failed. But in 1976, the Hyde Amendment was introduced by Congressman Henry Hyde. It was not any sort of standalone law, but rather a rider attached to the 1977 fiscal year’s Labor, Health and Humans Services Appropriations Bill.

There was a lot of back-and-forth and disagreements between the House and the Senate, and the measure went through a number of revisions before it was successful. Language that made exceptions for abortions in the case that the mother could die without the procedure was inserted, removed, and inserted again.

But eventually the provision known as the “Hyde Amendment” was passed in 1977. In essence, it prohibited any use of Medicaid funds for abortion, unless the life of the mother was endangered. The passage of the Hyde Amendment was seen as a big win for the growing pro-life movement, but because it’s a rider attached to an appropriations bill, it needs to be re-passed every year.

Legal Challenges

After the Hyde Amendment was passed, its legality was almost immediately challenged. The Reproductive Freedom Project, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Planned Parenthood, representing health care providers and a pregnant Medicaid patient, obtained an injunction 40 minutes after the provision went into effect. Federal Judge John F. Dooling Jr. granted the injunction, setting off a legal battle that made its way to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS sent the case back to Dooling, who kept the injunction in place for that year.

While the Hyde Amendment worked its way through the legal system, it also underwent revisions in Congress. Because it needs to be passed again through an appropriations bill each year, there’s plenty of room to edit and refine the language. Eventually, language that allowed for exceptions in the case of rape or incest were added.

Harris v. McRae 

In 1980, the Supreme Court officially weighed in on the legality of the Hyde Amendment in the case of Harris v. McRae. Cora McRae was a pregnant Medicaid patient who challenged the legality of the provision. The court was asked to weigh whether the Hyde Amendment violated the right to privacy, the right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment, or Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment. In a ruling neatly split by ideology, the court decided that the Hyde Amendment violated none of the above. According to Oyez:

The Court held that states participating in the Medicaid program were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions under Title XIX. The Court found that a woman’s freedom of choice did not carry with it ‘a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.’ The Court ruled that because the Equal Protection Clause was not a source of substantive rights and because poverty did not qualify as a ‘suspect classification,’ the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, the Court held that the coincidence of the funding restrictions of the statute with tenets of the Roman Catholic Church did not constitute an establishment of religion.

Although the text has evolved slightly over time, it’s similar to the original concept–federal funds through Medicaid should not be used for abortion services. The current text allows exceptions for if a mother’s life is at risk, or if a woman has become pregnant through rape or incest. Despite political majorities changing over time, and other legal cases brought against the provision, some version of the Hyde Amendment has passed every year since 1977.

Modern Day: H.R. 7

Recently, the Hyde Amendment has made it back into the news again, in the sense that there are moves being made to render it permanent. H.R. 7, also known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act” would codify the already-existing provisions in the Hyde Amendment and make the restrictions on federal funding permanent. It would also prevent women who are on military insurance or work for the federal government from using their insurance for abortion services.

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 7 on January 24, 2017 with a 238-183 vote. It’s unlikely to pass the Senate (similar bills passed the House in recent years and were not passed by the Senate) but if it does, it seems likely that President Donald Trump would choose to sign it.

Arguments for and Against the Hyde Amendment

There are plenty of arguments for and against the Hyde Amendment, many of which are tied to the general debate over abortion. The following lists are by no means conclusive. But like abortion, the Hyde Amendment remains incredibly controversial.

Arguments for the Hyde Amendment 

Advocates of the Hyde Amendment argue that it saves lives. The 40th anniversary of the original passage of the Hyde Amendment was in September 2016, and it was celebrated as having “saved two million lives” since its passage. Advocates argue that cutting funding for abortion prevents women from having abortions. Although it’s obviously difficult to quantify how many women would have sought abortions had they been able to, pro-life advocates estimate that if the Hyde Amendment was repealed, abortion rates would increase by roughly 25 percent.

Another argument in favor of the Hyde Amendment is that it is supported by the American public. Polling on the issue has varied widely–in fact, both supporters and detractors of the Hyde Amendment regularly make this argument–but it’s true that certain polls have indicated Americans are not in favor of using Medicaid funds for abortions. A Politico poll conducted in October 2016 found that 58 percent of voters are not in support of using Medicaid funding for abortion.

Even some pro-choice individuals are in favor of the Hyde Amendment, arguing that regardless of their personal or political beliefs on abortion, taxpayer money should not be involved. For example during the 2016 election, Senator Tim Kaine, in contrast to his running mate Hillary Clinton, was supportive of the Hyde Amendment. Kaine “stood with” Clinton’s efforts to repeal it, but said he was personally in support of the measure.

Arguments Against the Hyde Amendment

Critics of the Hyde Amendment point out that it is specifically intended to target poor women and women of color who rely on Medicaid. Hyde’s own statements when he introduced the measure provide some fodder for that point of view. He stated: “I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the (Medicaid) bill.” Advocates of repealing the Hyde Amendment point out that an abortion is expensive to pay for out-of-pocket, so many women who rely on Medicaid don’t have that option.

Those who support repealing the Hyde Amendment also point out that restricting access to abortion doesn’t necessarily lead to less abortions, but it leads to more unsafe abortions. They also point out that women who want an abortion but aren’t able to obtain one are more likely to fall into poverty than a woman who is able to. And given that many women who seek abortions already have at least one other child, that can be dire for entire families. Of course, traditional pro-choice arguments come into play when discussing the Hyde Amendment–including that women’s healthcare shouldn’t be a political decision.

Conclusion

Given that the Hyde Amendment comes up almost every time there’s discussion about “defunding” Planned Parenthood, it’s important to understand exactly what it does. The Hyde Amendment, like the abortion debate as a whole, is complicated, convoluted, and confusing. First introduced shortly after the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the language has evolved over time, but one thing has been consistent–it prohibits federal funding from being used for abortions. Given public opinion, as well as the Hyde Amendment’s longevity thus far, it seems likely that it will remain in place for the next few years.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the Hyde Amendment? appeared first on Law Street.

For most countries, health care is often a costly component of national budgets. That being said, the sheer volume of federal money spent on a nation’s health care system does not necessarily predict its efficacy. For example, the American health care system–with its rising premiums, drug costs, and glaring loopholes–could certainly be more efficient. The U.S. system has consistently ranked poorly among other industrialized nations, despite having the most expensive health care system in the world–17 percent of its GDP. As the White House grapples with how to handle health care under the new Trump Administration, American politicians may look to other countries for guidance.

One such country potentially worth emulating is the Netherlands. According to the global Prosperity Index, the Netherlands has one of the best health care systems in the world based on the country’s basic mental and physical health, health infrastructure, and availability of preventative care. Could this country’s critical health care reform and system structure be advantageous for the U.S.?

Netherlands Health Care Reform

In 1941, the Netherlands introduced a mandatory health insurance plan for low and middle income citizens. It provided most of the country’s population with basic health insurance, while wealthier citizens purchased private plans. But as the program grew, so did spending. In an effort to protect access to health care, the government passed the Health Care Prices Act in 1982 to control physician fees and revenues. Over the following decades, the Dutch started working toward creating a system that merged competition with universal access to health care.

Then, in 2006, the Netherlands passed the Health Insurance Act of 2006. This broad health reform law was intended to improve the health care system’s quality and efficiency by introducing uniform health insurance. Prior to the 2006 health insurance reform, the Netherlands health care system was comprised of four parts: long-term care insurance, supplementary private health insurance, social health insurance, and alternative private health insurance. After the reform, a new universal “private” social health insurance emerged, and long-term care and supplementary private insurance were maintained.

“Holland” Courtesy of Moyan Brenn : License (CC BY 2.0)

All people who legally live and work in the Netherlands are mandated to buy health insurance from a private insurance company. All insurers are required to accept each applicant, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Moreover, the plan is financed with individuals’ annual income-based contributions. Over half of all Dutch households also receive a subsidy from the government based on income. Since the system relies solely on a flat tax related to salary, the Dutch government does not have to shell out many resources to provide individuals with subsidies.

Today, the health insurance system appears to have more transparency than before. Consumers also have unrestricted choice between all insurance companies on the market. Interestingly, the Dutch approach is not a single-payer system. Instead, it combines mandatory universal health insurance with competition amongst private health insurers, creating more of a “risk equalization” system

Netherlands Health Care Structure

The Dutch do not aggressively regulate health care prices; instead, they’ve chosen to hone in on risk selection and primary care.  By tracking a myriad of factors such as: age, sex, pharmaceutical history, and hospital use, the government is able to determine which individuals are more risky to insure and how much it will potentially cost to cover them in the future. The government then pays more money to insurance companies taking on sicker patients. In an effort to offset these costs, each citizen is required to sign up for a general practitioner who acts as a “gatekeeper” to more expensive care and services. This allows the Dutch to cut back on unnecessary–and often costly–visits to specialized doctors. Individuals who are unhappy with their care have the option to change their insurance policy each year.

Insurers are also mandated to place all profits into a shared fund. That money is then distributed to other insurance companies whose patients are sicker than anticipated. Essentially, the Dutch have made insuring only the healthy a less viable and effective business strategy for insurance companies. The government has also set aside a health care budget, and still sets the price on most services. Since physicians are paid a lump sum each year–rather than fee-for-services–there is less incentive for them to overprescribe medications.

But no health care system is completely free from flaws. Cost-related access problems–not filling prescriptions, skipping recommended tests or treatments, or not visiting a doctor because of cost issues–still plague the Netherlands. However, timely access to health care, including elective or non-emergency surgeries, is much easier to receive in the Netherlands.

In many ways, the Dutch health care system is now an efficient “managed competition.” According to the United Nations’ 2017 World Happiness Report, the Netherlands ranked an impressive sixth out of more than 150 countries. While many factors were considered, health care coverage and life expectancy were integral in determining the overall happiness rankings.

What Can the U.S. Do?

In 2008, researchers noted that implementing a Dutch-like system in the U.S. could be attractive to many American citizens in an article entitled “Universal Mandatory Health Insurance In The Netherlands: A Model For The United States?” Consumer choice, in particular, is an aspect of the Netherlands’ health care overhaul that is incredibly desirable to Americans. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may have been the U.S.’ first step toward implementing a health care system similar to the Dutch (insurance policy choices for consumers, attempts to insure more of the population, and coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions), but the system still has its glaring issues.

In 2014, the Commonwealth Fund produced a report that ranked the U.S. third out of 11 wealthy nations in timelines of care and effective care overall.  The Dutch, on the other hand, can provide universal coverage with very low out-of-pocket costs, while still maintaining speedy access to services. According to the study, the U.S. also ranked last on measures of equity; Americans with low incomes are far more likely than counterparts in other countries to not visit a physician when ill. Poor rankings in equity, efficiency, healthy lives, and cost-related access problems contributed to the U.S. ultimately ranking last overall in the study for the fifth time.

While the Dutch have managed to create an institutional framework to deliver universal access to health care along with market competition and consumer choice, the researchers found that the system still struggles to provide the most high-quality care. Meanwhile, the U.S. has integrated many high-caliber delivery systems, but fails to provide universal access to basic health insurance at an affordable rate. U.S. health care still remains the most expensive in the world, and yet it manages to underperform relative to other countries.

The U.S. and the Netherlands are perhaps most divided in the regulation of insurance companies. The ACA left a significant amount of diversity in the insurance marketplace, making it nearly impossible for the program to be fully transparent and simplified with the vast amount of choices. Obamacare offers four different varieties of insurance packages, while the Dutch program offers only one–which is probably most comparable to the Obamacare silver plans. Insurers in the U.S. are able to charge older customers up to three times as much as younger ones, adding even more complexity to the American system. Other researchers note that America’s “spend more, get less” model is tied to other issues–safe, affordable housing; employment prospects; reliable transportation; and consistent, well-balanced meals–that may be even more important to a population’s overall health than just specific medical care.

Conclusion

Building a perfect health care system is downright difficult, regardless of the country or government structure. However, the efficacy and success of the Netherlands’ universal system may be something the U.S. can learn from, and perhaps even integrate into its own system. While there is a lot of support for single-payer (“Medicare for all”), the Dutch system of health care isn’t too far removed from what President Barack Obama attempted to implement through the ACA. With more efficiency and management of the health insurance market, it’s possible the U.S. could save billions of dollars following a more Dutch-like system of health care.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could America Learn a Thing or Two From the Netherlands’ Health Care? appeared first on Law Street.

Hong Kong recently held elections to determine the next Chief Executive of the semi-autonomous region. Despite widespread pro-democracy protests in 2014, a pro-Beijing government official, Carrie Lam, was elected. Following the election, leaders of that very same pro-democracy movement were faced with threats of arrest. To fully understand these events, it is necessary to look back to Hong Kong’s history as well as the history of the protest movement. Read on further to find out where this movement sprang from and to learn about the current state of democracy in Hong Kong.

History of Hong Kong

Humans have lived in what is now Hong Kong for thousands of years. However, it was not until the rise of the Eastern Han Dynasty that the area was considered part of the Chinese Empire. Beginning in the 12th century, five clans of the Han Dynasty, who still exercise power in Hong Kong today, began to arrive. Some believe that as these groups came to the area they started to push out some of the original inhabitants who moved onto houseboats and formed fishing communities that still exist today.

Despite Hong Kong becoming incorporated into the Chinese Empire, in many respects, it remained largely untended. Its location and the rise in trade allowed for the entrance of foreign actors, namely the Europeans. Trade flows started with the Portuguese and continued with the Dutch, French, and finally the British. Chinese authorities made efforts to curb European influence but they proved futile given the high demand for Chinese goods in Europe. Eager to correct a trade imbalance, the British introduced opium, which led to the emergence of a large market as well as the spread of addiction in China. In response, the Chinese Emperor tried to outlaw opium, culminating in the Opium Wars.

In 1842, following the first Opium War, China ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain and access to several ports in Treaty of Nanking. In 1898, the British were given an additional 99-year lease on the city as well as for 235 other small islands. Over the years, the city became a haven for those fleeing both domestic upheavals and later the Japanese during World War II. In 1941 Japan occupied Hong Kong, causing many to leave for mainland China. Britain later reestablished control in 1946.

Shortly after the war, Hong Kong underwent an economic boom. But in the following decades, the city saw social strife and riots as workers chafed at economic inequality and were influenced by policies from the mainland. In the 1970s, Hong Kong emerged as one of the “Asian Tigers,” a highly developed economy in the region. In 1982 Great Britain and China began negotiations to return the city to China, culminating in the Joint Declaration of 1984. This agreement called for Hong Kong to maintain its capitalist economy and partially-democratic system for the next 50 years. It’s important to note, however, that while the agreement called for eventual universal suffrage, that specific mandate was not guaranteed, leaving it open to interpretation.  The following video provides a good history of Hong Kong from the inception of British rule to the present:

Hong Kong’s Government

The Special Administrative Region, its formal distinction, is governed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong. This system guarantees 50 years of autonomy for the region and a government consisting of the Chief Executive, the Executive Council, a two-tiered legislature, and an independent judiciary. The Chief Executive and the Executive Council, which is essentially the Chief Executive’s cabinet, lead the government and perform many of the same functions as the Executive Branch in the United States.

The Chief Executive is elected by an election committee that is comprised of 1,194 members. Only 70 of the members are government officials while the rest are a mix of elites from various professions. This method of election has garnered extensive criticism and the results have sparked protests in the past. Much of that criticism is due to the heavy influence of Beijing among the elites as well as the extent of its influence over candidate selection and election rules. To win the election, the Chief Executive needs to garner a majority of the election committee’s vote.

The Legislative Council is currently composed of 70 members, up from its original 60. It has been in existence since the beginning of British rule in 1843. Originally, it served as more of an advisory board, but throughout the years–especially following the transition from British Colony to Chinese Special Administrative Region in 1997–it has taken on many of the responsibilities of a traditional Western-style legislature. Some of its specific duties include: enacting and amending laws, creating public budgets, appointing and removing the judges of the Final Court of Appeals and the Chief Justice, and holding the power to impeach the Chief Executive. Half of its members are directly elected based on geography, the other half are chosen by government bodies.

Below the legislature are the District Councils, which direct some public spending at the local level and advise the government on issues affecting people in their jurisdictions. Funding allocated to District Councils is typically used for cultural and community activities within the district.

The judiciary acts independently of the executive and legislature and uses a common law system that is based on the region’s Basic Law. All courts fall under the ultimate authority of the Court of Final Appeals headed by the Chief Justice. The Court of Final Appeals essentially serves as Hong Kong’s Supreme Court.

Pro-Democracy Protests

The pro-democracy sentiment in Hong Kong has existed since before it became a Special Administrative Region in China. In 1984, China and Great Britain signed an agreement to transfer Hong Kong to the Chinese after Britain’s 99-year lease ended in 1997. That treaty led to the notion of “one nation, two systems” for Hong Kong and China. One of the basic tenants of this agreement was the Basic Law, which promised universal suffrage after a certain time period passed. However, the sentiment behind the treaty was quickly brought into question, long before the actual transfer, after China’s tough crackdown in Tiananmen Square. The 1990s saw another brief crisis when Great Britain’s last colonial governor tried to increase democratic reforms, which enraged the Chinese government. Ultimately though, it eventually agreed to a watered-down version of the reforms.

China’s choice for the first post-British leader, combined with a proposed anti-subversion law, quickly galvanized the pro-Democracy movement in Hong Kong. The anti-subversion law, which would have criminalized criticism of Beijing, led 500,000 people to march in the streets. Ultimately, the law was never enacted. Protests continued after this incident, including in 2004 when Beijing ruled against universal suffrage and direct elections for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive. In the following year, protesters held remembrances for the 16th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests; Hong Kong was the only part of China to acknowledge the anniversary.

A breakthrough was seemingly achieved in 2007 when Beijing promised to allow direct election of the Chief Executive by 2017 and the Legislature Council by 2020. Events seemed to be keeping pace in 2010 when the Democratic Party held its first talks with the mainland government since the transfer. In 2014, voters pressed the issue and in an unofficial referendum, 800,000 people, or 90 percent, voted in favor of having the power to select the list of candidates up for election. This referendum was dismissed and ruled illegal by China. In 2014, China went further and ruled that citizens of Hong Kong would not be allowed to directly elect leaders in the 2017 election.

These decisions led to the Umbrella Movement in 2014. The movement, named for the umbrellas that protesters used to shield themselves from tear gas and rain, grew out of an earlier student movement and led to the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong’s financial district.  These, in turn, led to police crackdowns and anti-occupy protests. This continued until the protest camps were ultimately removed in December 2014. The accompanying video summarizes the Umbrella Movement in greater detail:

The Aftermath

Following the protests, new election reforms were proposed in 2015 but were defeated by the Legislative Council. In 2016, protests started again after Beijing removed pro-democracy candidates from the Legislative Council elections, however, they were countered by pro-Beijing supporters and the protests failed to amount to anything.

Following the most recent election, in which pro-Beijing candidate Carrie Lam was elected, at least nine protest organizers were ordered to report to the police or face arrest. This also sparked protests across the city and led to the planning of a citywide protest on July 1, Lam’s first day in office and also the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong becoming a part of China.

Conclusion

Hong Kong has long served as an important port city between China and the West. It served as a toe-hold for several competing European nations until the British finally established a permanent colony. Britain imported large amounts of opium and resorted to force to maintain its control over the city and trade with the region. However, under British rule, Hong Kong was often isolated from Chinese politics and developed its own civic culture. Although residents of Hong Kong never had universal suffrage–either under the British during the colonial era and now as a Special Administrative Region in China–Hong Kong has long had a distinct economic and political system that has been at odds with China.

When the British did eventually return Hong Kong to China, it was with the understanding that customs established under British rule, most notably limited democracy, would be respected. However, since the transition, democracy in Hong Kong has been challenged. The pro-democracy movement has endured in the face of many efforts by the Chinese to maintain control and stability. Perhaps the most obvious example was the Umbrella Movement. Mainland China is back on the offensive again though, with the recent arrests of Umbrella Movement leaders.

So, it will be interesting to see what the next step is. For all the talk of democracy in Hong Kong, its people have never actually elected its top executive; even when the British ruled the governor was appointed. Furthermore, while the protests against Beijing’s interference or for direct elections have drawn massive crowds, they have also spawned counter-protests. Hong Kong remains a divided city that faces several challenges when it comes to democratic concessions from the mainland. While the government in Beijing has allowed some reforms in the past, it remains reluctant to allow anything that resembles universal suffrage. While much of the future relies on the actions of the Chinese government, the pro-democracy movement will also need to coalesce around a clear vision for reform and transition.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fate of Hong Kong’s Pro-Democracy Movement appeared first on Law Street.

While on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump repeatedly vowed to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “Obamacare”). However, his first attempt at dismantling the federal statute crashed and burned before a single vote was even cast due to divisions among conservative and moderate Republicans on Capitol Hill. If passed, Trump’s health care bill would have slashed federal funding to Medicaid.

Now, in the wake of the embarrassing defeat, Trump’s fledgling administration is still looking to give the American people a better option for health care. Some experts believe this could still come in the form of reforms to Medicaid and Medicare, which have historically been mired in controversy.

So, lets take a look at how these health care programs, both enacted in 1965, have evolved over the years. How has the Affordable Care Act affected them? And what is the fate of these programs if a new health care bill is finally passed?

What is Medicaid?

Medicaid is a social health care program for certain individuals and families in the U.S. with limited income and resources. It was created through the Social Security Amendments of 1965–signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson–under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. It essentially acts as government insurance for those who are unable to pay for traditional health care costs.

The federal government matches state spending on Medicaid to enable states to provide medical assistance to residents who meet their individual eligibility requirements. While the program is jointly funded by state and federal governments, it is managed at the state level. Thus, every state has an immense amount of autonomy in determining who is eligible for the program. Since 1982, all 50 states have participated in the program–despite not being required to do so.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly expanded Medicaid eligibility, extending coverage to adults under 65 years of age who have incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, as well as making it available for low-income adults without dependent children. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius determined that states did not have to agree to the expansion. Thus, many states have continued to stay at pre-ACA funding and eligibility levels.

As a whole, Medicaid provides a variety of services for some of America’s most vulnerable populations. According to the National Council for Behavioral Health, Medicaid is the single largest payer of mental health services, paying for 25 percent of all mental health care and 20 percent of all addiction care. Four out of 10 children are treated under Medicaid, and a study published in Women’s Health Issues found that almost half of the 4 million births each year in the U.S. are covered by the program. Medicaid also often covers the costs of nursing homes and other long-term care options for elderly patients.

Medicaid Structure Explained

While poverty is a primary requirement for Medicaid eligibility, it alone does not qualify citizens for the program. Other categories, such as pregnancy, age, and disability, may also qualify a citizen for Medicaid eligibility. Interestingly, Medicaid also provided the largest portion of federal money for people with HIV/AIDS until Part D of Medicare was implemented (but more on that later). In most states, adults who receive Supplemental Security Income benefits (a federal income supplement program) are automatically enrolled in Medicaid. While state Medicaid programs are required by federal rules to cover comprehensive dental services for children, coverage for adult dental services is optional and oftentimes limited.

Some states choose to utilize the Health Insurance Premium Payment Program (HIPP). Under HIPP, a person under Medicaid is eligible to have private health insurance paid for by the Medicaid program. Essentially, the state pays the private insurance premiums for beneficiaries. States may also combine administration of Medicaid with other programs, such as the Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP), for ease.

What is Medicare?

Medicare, in contrast, is a single-payer social health insurance program specifically for those aged 65 and older that has been administered by the federal government since 1966. With President Lyndon B. Johnson at the helm, Congress enacted Medicare in 1965 under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. Medicare provides health insurance to some individuals under the age of 65 with disabilities as determined by the Social Security Administration. For example, any individuals with end stage renal disease or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are eligible for Medicare.

Those who have worked and paid into the system through payroll tax are eligible once they reach age 65, regardless of income or medical history. Currently, there are a number of private insurance companies across the U.S. under contract for administration of Medicare. It is funded primarily through payroll taxes, general revenues, and premiums paid by Medicare beneficiaries.

In 1966, Medicare spurred racial integration, by making desegregation of waiting rooms and hospital floors a condition of receiving Medicare funds. According to David Barton Smith, a professor emeritus in health-care management at Temple University, nearly 2,000 hospitals had integrated by July 1966 in order to remain connected to federal money for the program. Although some hospitals resisted integration, and those who complied found ways to restrict multi-bed rooms, Medicare still played an important role in integrating the nation’s hospitals.

Medicare Structure Explained

Structurally, Medicare is complicated. There are four parts: Part A, hospital and hospice insurance; Part B, medical insurance; Part C, Medicare Advantage plans; and Part D, prescription drug plans. Hospital and hospice insurance covers inpatient hospital stays, care in a skilled nursing facility, hospice care, and some home health care. Medical insurance under Part B is optional, and helps insured members pay for services and products that are not covered under Part A–usually outpatient care. Patients who miss their initial enrollment period for Part B incur a lifetime penalty of 10 percent per year on the premium.

Medicare Advantage plans under Part C are Medicare plans sold through private insurance companies. These plans are required to offer coverage that meets or even exceeds standards set by Original Medicare. However, they do not have to be identical in covering every benefit. These are considered “capitated” health insurance plans, which is a payment arrangement that pays a physician or group of physicians a set amount for each enrolled person assigned to them for a particular period of time, whether that person seeks care or not. The difference between Part C plans and Original Medicare is likened to the standard HMO versus non-HMO plan decisions other citizens make.

Finally, Part D covers prescription drug plans. It was created in 2003 under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act and went into effect in 2006. Anyone with Part A or Part B is eligible for Part D, though the coverage is not standardized. Plans choose which drugs to cover, though they must cover at least two drugs in 148 categories and cover substantially all drugs in six protected classes (including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-convulsants, immuno-suppressants, as well as cancer, AIDS, and HIV drugs).

Medicaid and Medicare under the ACA

Medicaid was expanded extensively under the ACA. Currently, 73 million people are enrolled in Medicaid, and roughly 11 million are covered under the program because of the ACA expansion. States who chose to reject the Medicaid expansion are slowly facing the consequences of that decision. Reports issued by the Urban Institute, Lewin Group, and Rand Corp. have stated that these states are slated to lose billions of dollars–money that their own residents have paid in federal taxes.

The ACA expansion also made a number of changes to Medicare; many provisions were specifically designed to reduce the cost of Medicare. It was designed to help Medicare patients afford their prescription drugs by closing the Part D coverage gap, often referred to as the “donut hole,” by year 2020.

Furthermore, premiums under Part B and Part D were restructured; as a result, the wealthiest people with Medicare had their contributions increased. More oversight, stronger standards, and provider screenings were also enacted to prevent Medicare fraud and abuse.

What’s Next?

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 60 percent of Americans feel that the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health insurance. This number increased from 51 percent last year and has now reached its highest point in roughly a decade. Those on the other side of the argument–individuals who believe the government has no responsibility to provide health insurance for all–do, however, believe that the government should continue Medicaid and Medicare.

Following the death of Trump’s heath care bill that would have repealed and replaced the ACA, some states are looking to see if participating in the federally-funded Medicaid expansion is a lucrative path to take. As of last count, 19 states have opted out. Some contend that an expansion of Medicare may be a way to improve upon the ACA. Potentially lowering the age of eligibility of Medicare to 50 may also make private individual health more affordable. Moreover, offering Medicare as an option on health insurance exchanges could bring in younger people, reducing Medicare’s overall average costs by not just insuring those who cost the most to insure.

In contrast, there is also the option of implementing a full single-payer healthcare program, considered “Medicare for All”–a system that Senator Bernie Sanders has advocated for immensely. Under a single-payer system, any links between employment and health insurance would cease, as well as expanding the net for people over 65 to all Americans. Thus, the entire spectrum of care for every American citizen would be covered: primary, vision, oral, mental health, and more. Instead of paying a premium to for-profit insurance companies, Americans would merely pay a tax and employers would also pay taxes through payroll. Senator Sanders is poised to reintroduce the single-payer plan in the Senate, on the heels of the failed Republican ACA repeal attempt.

Conclusion

Despite the problems with the current health care system, such as rising premiums and fewer choices for citizens, Medicaid and Medicare have arguably been success stories in their more than 50-year history. Providing insurance and health care to the country’s most at-risk populations–the poor, the disabled, and elderly–is something to be lauded. What lies ahead for the programs, however, is up in the air until a new health care reform bill is passed.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Evolution of Medicare and Medicaid in America appeared first on Law Street.

In recent years, scientists have been paying a lot of attention to a striking development: the number of infectious diseases has increased considerably. That rise was not just one or two more diseases each year. In fact, over the last 100 years, the number of new infectious diseases discovered each year has quadrupled and outbreaks have tripled. What explains this dramatic increase in new infectious diseases? Read on to find out the answer to this question, how scientists are working to fight diseases, and what the consequences could be if we continue along this same trajectory.

Infectious Disease on the Rise

To begin to understand the rising levels of infectious disease, it is first imperative to understand the common terminology. Four terms, in particular, are used very frequently and require clarification. These terms are outbreaks, epidemics, pandemics, and endemic. An outbreak occurs when the number of cases of a specific disease in a specific community rises above what would normally be expected. Epidemics are, “a widespread increase in the observed rates of disease in a given population.” Pandemics are basically the multinational form of epidemics in that they encompass worldwide outbreaks beyond a particular population. Endemic is decidedly different than the other terms and essentially means a rate of disease that is consistently higher within a given group. These definitions are particularly important for the people treating an outbreak on the ground, as it helps them tune their methods to the reality of the situation. The following video gives an overview of how disease spreads:

Although that rise sounds troubling it is not all doom and gloom. While individual outbreaks are increasing, they are affecting fewer people now than before. Additionally, only a small variety of infectious diseases are responsible for the majority of outbreaks. Furthermore, of these strands, a little over half are zoonosis–diseases that are passed from animals to humans. Even among zoonosis, there are only a few zoonotic diseases that cause most outbreaks. In other words, outbreaks are on the rise but a decreasing number of diseases–passed from animals to humans–account for that rise. The question then becomes, what is leading to the rise in outbreaks?

Factors Leading to the Rise of Infectious Diseases

There are several reasons for this increase, but it starts with us and the actions we take. Many of the recent outbreaks are not new diseases, only new to us as a species. They have been incubating and traveling all across areas like rainforests for tens of thousands of years. However, with human encroachment in the form of farming, mining, housing, etc. people are starting to come into contact with these diseases more often and the results are not always good.

Other human manipulations of the environment are also leading to the rise of infectious diseases. These include seemingly benign activities such as reforestation, animal farming, and even flooding rice patties. Sometimes it can be a combination of human activity and environmental factors, such as when milder winters that are the result of global warming fail to kill off the usual number of pests. In fact, rising temperatures have the potential to be one of the greatest contributors to the continued rise of infectious diseases in the coming years, while ailments such as Malaria, which prosper in warmer climates, may become much more virulent. The video below details how global warming can increase the risk of infectious disease:

Other trends, like urbanization, may also contribute to the rise of infectious diseases. By clumping closer together, the chances of an infection spreading quickly are much higher. This is particularly true when urbanization occurs in poorer countries without effective public health monitoring and preventions systems. Similarly, more travel between countries and regions can introduce infections to places that have never seen them before and it can increase the likelihood that an epidemic becomes a pandemic. Even technology and modern supply chains can present a risk, as processing consolidation may increase the likelihood that contamination spreads.

Resistance to antibiotics and resulting superbugs are additional issues leading to the rising number of infectious diseases. However, this is also a problem for viral infections for many of the same reasons, including over prescription of certain medicines and prescribing the wrong medication for a specific disease. Viruses are especially problematic because they can evolve so quickly that it is impossible to stay ahead of them. The clearest example of this is influenza or the flu which changes from year to year. Along with antibiotics, many sanitation systems are also proving less useful than before. In this case, the issue has more to do with the lack of upkeep in existing public health systems that has led to outbreaks of old diseases such as cholera.

Efforts to Fight Outbreaks

Given this trend, what is being done to stem the tide? Actually, governments began addressing the rise of infectious diseases several years ago. A response was prompted back in 2014, following the outbreaks of MERS and bird flu. That year, the United States, along with dozens of countries and organizations, announced a plan to respond and treat new outbreaks where they start.

Currently, efforts to fight infectious disease in the United States fall under the authority of the Centers for Disease Control, or CDC. Specifically, many of those efforts are housed in the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases or NCEZID. NCEZID focuses on reducing both illnesses and deaths that are associated with infectious diseases. It also strives to be proactive in protecting against the spread of infectious diseases.

At the international level, there is the World Health Organization (WHO). Much like the CDC in the United States, the WHO also focuses on reacting to and fighting epidemics. The WHO acts more like a clearinghouse encouraging individual countries to improve their own existing systems and work to integrate them internationally so a crisis in one country can be handled as effectively by its neighbor if it crosses international borders. When it comes to the spread of infectious disease, the WHO serves as an international monitor to identify and coordinate a response to outbreaks.

Conclusion

Foreseeing and preventing all outbreaks of infectious disease would be impossible. Just last year, for instance, several people in Russia were infected with Anthrax when frozen strains of the disease were released when permafrost melted. While this could easily lead to discussions about global warming, the truth is that it just as clearly exemplifies that it is impossible to anticipate everything. In fact, in some cases, efforts are even seen as misguided or unwanted.

Many recent efforts have focused on identifying and understanding new diseases, like those deep in the rainforest. However, such methods have also been criticized for spending scarce funding to search out new diseases when funds could instead be used for treating known maladies. Although it seems odd to criticize people for being proactive, that might be a fair critique in a world with finite resources. In fact, it might be fair to wonder why people are really that concerned with infectious diseases at all.

This is because non-communicable diseases, like cancer, which cannot be spread from one person to another, kill far more people each year than infectious diseases. However, those diseases also originate within us and frequently have to do with factors that we are less able to control, such as getting older. Conversely, based on the fact that only a few diseases cause most of the outbreaks, infectious disease can be managed and their threat reduced. Thus counteracting the rise of infectious diseases is likely to continue to be a mainstay of health policy both nationally and globally.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Infectious Diseases on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.

Since almost the moment that President Donald Trump took office, there have been calls to impeach him. Cities have passed resolutions calling for Trump’s impeachment, some Democratic politicians have indicated that they believe he should be impeached, and a late-March survey by Public Policy Polling reports that 44 percent of Americans support impeaching the president. Regardless of many unprecedented actions on Trump’s part, this isn’t really anything new–comments about impeachment consistently dogged President Barack Obama’s presidency as well.

But an impeachment is much easier said than done. Over the course of American history, only two presidents have ever been impeached–President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton, but neither president was removed from office as a result. Impeachment proceedings against a third president, Richard Nixon, began, but he resigned before much progress was made. Read on to learn about the impeachment process and the history of impeachments in the United States.

How Does Impeachment Work?

The U.S. Constitution lays out a procedure for impeaching the president (and vice president, and other officials).

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 makes it clear that the House of Representatives has the ability to “impeach” a president, essentially meaning that the House is in charge of bringing impeachment charges. Although there are a few different things that can lead to a House impeachment, usually it begins with some sort of allegations being made against an official. The House Judiciary Committee is then tasked with investigating those allegations. If so, the entire House then votes on whether or not to impeach the official–majority rules–by adopting articles of impeachment. Although not a perfect metaphor, it might be helpful to think of an impeachment like an indictment.

As Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 state, the Senate actually tries an official. Members of the House of Representatives are appointed to act as sort-of prosecutors of the official who is being tried. While usually the senators themselves serve as both judge and jury, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Two-thirds of Senators are required to convict, and as a penalty for being convicted, the official must be removed from office. There is no way to appeal.

Impeachments Throughout History

The two most notorious impeachments are obviously President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. But impeachment isn’t just reserved for presidents. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings for over 60 individuals since America’s independence. The House issued articles of impeachment for 15 other individuals. Of those 15, eight were found guilty by the Senate. The majority were judges. Here are the American officials who have been impeached:

• In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached on charges that he tried to help England seize Spanish-controlled territory in North America. He was expelled from the Senate before he was actually tried.
• In 1803, Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached for being drunk on the bench and acting inappropriately. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1804, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for “arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.” He was acquitted.
• In 1830, James H. Peck, a judge from Tennessee, was accused of abuse of power. He was acquitted.
• In 1862, West H. Humphreys, also a Tennessee judge, was impeached on charges that he “refused to hold court” and was acting against the U.S. government. He was found guilty, removed from office, and prevented from holding office in the future.
• In 1873 a Kansas judge, Mark H. Delahay, was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. He resigned before a trial began.
• In 1876, William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, was impeached on various corruption charges. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• In 1904, Charles Swayne, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he misused his office. He was acquitted.
• In 1912, Robert W. Archbald, an Associate Judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, was impeached based on allegations that he had inappropriate business relationships with some litigants. He was found guilty, lost his job, and prevented from holding office moving forward.
• In 1926, George W. English, a judge from Illinois, was accused of abusing his power. He resigned and the charges were dismissed.
• In 1933, Harold Louderback, a California judge, was accused of “favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers.” He was acquitted.
• In 1936, Halsted L. Ritter, a judge from Florida, was impeached on a few charges, including that he was practicing law as a sitting judge. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1986, Harry E. Claiborne, a Nevada judge, was accused of tax evasion, and staying on the bench despite having been convicted of a crime. He was found guilty, and lost his position.
• In 1988 Alcee L. Hastings, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he perjured himself and conspired to solicit a bribe. He was found guilty and removed from office. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because Hastings is now a congressman.)
• In 1989, Walter L. Nixon, a Mississippi judge, was impeached on various charges, including that he lied under oath. He was found guilty and removed from his post.
• In 2009, Samuel B. Kent, a Texas judge, was impeached on a number of charges, including sexual assault. He resigned before the proceedings were completed.
• In 2010, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Louisiana judge, was impeached on charges that included perjury and accepting bribes. He was found guilty, lost his position, and cannot hold office in the future.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson assumed office after his predecessor, President Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated in April 1865. However, the Lincoln-Johnson ticket was unusual. While Lincoln was a Republican, Johnson was a Democrat from the South. He had remained in the Senate even after his home state of Tennessee seceded, which endeared him to the Republicans. In 1964, Lincoln chose Johnson for his ticket, which was under the “National Unity Party,” in an attempt to appeal to the entire country in the context of the Civil War.

But when Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson was left in charge, he disagreed with the Republicans who held the majority in Congress. He famously declared: “This is a country for white men, and as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men.” He stood against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, passed by Congress. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, despite Johnson’s veto. This stopped the president from dismissing any government officials without the Senate’s approval.

Regardless of the bill, Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War, who supported the Republicans in Congress. In response, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson, 126-47. The charges were that he violated the Tenure of Office Act and brought “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach” into Congress. As Johnson was being tried by the Senate, he took actions that were seen as concessions to the Republicans in Congress. He ended up being acquitted, by just one vote.

Richard Nixon’s Narrow Miss 

President Richard Nixon resigned after the fallout from the Watergate Scandal and his administration’s subsequent coverup. But had he not resigned, he certainly risked impeachment. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed one article of impeachment–had Nixon not resigned, that vote would have made it to the full House of Representatives.

President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 

While in office, President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. Ken Starr, an independent investigator who had been originally tasked with looking into the Whitewater scandal but ended up investigating a wider range of controversies, submitted a report to the House Judiciary Committee. The report alleged that Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky during various testimony, including some regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a woman named Paula Jones. The Starr Report contained 11 possible grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

While the report was controversial, and Starr was accused of attacking Clinton for political motives, on December 19, 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against the president–one for obstruction of justice with a vote of 221-212, and one for lying under oath to a grand jury by a vote of 228-206.

On February 12, 1998, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges. In order to convict Clinton, the Senate would have needed a two-thirds majority. The obstruction of justice charge only garnered 50 votes, and the perjury charge only had 45 votes.

However, the impeachment, and affair, marred Clinton’s legacy.

Conclusion

Despite calls to impeach President Donald Trump (and previously President Barack Obama), impeachment isn’t as simple as it sounds. It’s a long, controversial, and political process–one that has only ever been even partially started against three presidents. While other figures throughout history have been impeached, those three presidents–President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton–offer the closest thing we have to a blueprint for how an impeachment of a president would look. Given today’s contentious political landscape, who knows when we’ll see that again.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Impeach a President appeared first on Law Street.

The United States recently sent a missile defense system to South Korea in order to protect the country and deter its northern rival in the wake of repeated missile tests. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that while the United States and South Korea see the move as defensive, others in the region see it as aggressive. Specifically, China and Russia, along with North Korea, see it as an act of American belligerence meant to undermine their own deterrent capabilities. Arms races and missile defenses have a long history and their presence can often ratchet up situations as much as they calm them down. Read on to learn more about the history of missiles, missile defense, and the ramifications of these systems.

History of Missiles

Crude rockets were developed all the way back in 13th century China. They were used occasionally over the next few centuries but were not heavily utilized because their paper or wood shells often made them inaccurate and they lacked enough power to cause major damage. This began to change in late 18th century India, when Tipu Sultan, leader of the Kingdom of Mysore, used metal-tubed rockets against the British. The metal tubes not only increased accuracy but also increased pressure, making them considerably more powerful.

Following this improvement, rockets started being used with increasing regularity. While missile testing and research advanced during World War I, modern missile technology would not be ready for a couple of decades. World War II saw an explosion of rocket use with the introduction of land-based, vehicle-based, and even human-operated rockets. Following the war, the two resulting superpowers began testing missiles with greater frequency and their respective ranges and destructive power gradually increased.

When it comes to missiles, several important distinctions can be made. The most basic distinction is between what separates a bomb from a missile. Bombs are unguided and have no propulsion system, whereas missiles do. There are two additional differences that determine the type of missile. Ballistic missiles have two phases, the first is the powered guided phase, during which the missile is propelled onto its given trajectory. Once the fuel runs out, the missile enters its second phase where it is essentially guided by the laws of physics. Ballistic missiles are very hard to intercept.

The second type of missile is the cruise missile. Cruise missiles are essentially airplanes with explosives attached. Thanks to their navigation features, such as wings and even GPS, cruise missiles are very accurate and can be aimed at extremely small targets like doors. Due to their maneuverability, cruise missiles are even harder to intercept than ballistic missiles. Both ballistic and cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads, although cruise missiles typically carry smaller payloads than ballistic missiles. Along with these two classifications are several others that distinguish between things like how a missile is launched, its target, and the terminology used in different countries.

The U.S. Missile Defense Program

When it comes to missile defense systems, the current landscape consists of the United States, and then everyone else. Since halfway through the 1950s up until 2000, the United States spent over $100 billion on missile defense and is the only country, in fact, to commit a significant portion of its defense spending to this specific cause. While the U.S. has spent a significant sum on missile defense, its actual commitment to the technology has waxed and waned over time.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration began the missile defense program in response to the Soviets developing nuclear missiles. The first missile defense system was deployed by President Richard Nixon as a response to a Soviet defense system and in order to help the U.S. position in arms treaty negotiations. Support then dropped under President Gerald Ford, who saw the system as ineffective. Nonetheless, large expenditures continued under President Jimmy Carter and then ballooned under both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. The first Bush Administration finally cut back the missile defense budget following the collapse of the USSR and defense efforts were refocused on combatting accidental launches.

However, President Bill Clinton signed the National Missile Defense Act in 1999, signaling a shift back to a focus on missile defense. President George W. Bush was a strong supporter of missile defense and increased spending on defense systems significantly. In 2002 the Bush Administration actually withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to advance its missile defense system. Former President Barack Obama also supported a variety of missile defense initiatives, both in the U.S. and abroad; however, he did reverse some of President Bush’s efforts to place a defense system in Europe.

The current U.S. missile defense system consists of several parts, each of which focuses on missiles at a different stage of flight. The first stage of flight is the boost phase, which occurs when a missile is being propelled by an engine or fuel source. The second stage is the midcourse phase, which is when a missile is done launching and starts on its course to the target. Third is the terminal stage, which occurs when the missile reenters the earth’s atmosphere and continues until impact or detonation.

The five primary components of the U.S. missile defense system have different launch locations in order to intercept missiles in specific stages of flight. The ground-based system focuses on missiles at the midcourse phase. The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, located on submarines, can intercept short, medium, and intermediate-range missiles during their midcourse phase. The Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) component is launched from a truck to defend against short and medium-ranged missiles during their midcourse and terminal phases. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) component is designed to defend against short and medium-ranged missiles in their terminal phase. Finally, the space-based surveillance system is attached to three geosynchronous satellites to provide information and early warnings of missile launches.

The United States is not the only country with a missile defense system. Russia also maintains its own system based around Moscow. In addition, several other countries have their own defense systems. For example, Israel has its “Iron Dome” system in place to protect against local attacks and other systems for long-range missiles. While a few countries have some form of missile defense, a larger number have missile technology and could conceivably develop missile defense capabilities. As of 2014, 31 countries had some form of ballistic missile technology, although the capabilities of some of those countries, such as Afghanistan, are currently in doubt.

Complications of Installing Missile Defense Systems 

The THAAD missile defense system in South Korea is certainly not the first time the U.S. or another country has installed defense systems in other countries, and the United States has already installed the same system in its territory of Guam to counter the North Korean threat.

While the placement of missile defense systems is often controversial, it is fair to wonder if all this concern over the installation of missile defense systems is warranted. The reason for this is two-fold. Every existing defense system is severely limited in comparison to the offensive capabilities of many countries. Specifically, the missiles used for defense cost much more than the offensive weapons, so there are fewer of them. The current cost balance means that it is considerably cheaper for countries to build new missiles than it is for the United States or any country to defend against them. Current systems are also not equipped to handle a strike as large as countries like Russia or China could potentially launch given their weapons stockpiles.

The other major issue is that defensive missile technology is not very reliable. This has been the case in the past too–the initial U.S. missile defense system was viewed as so ineffective that it was scrapped in 1974. This issue continued through the Gulf War when the Patriot System had a considerable difficulty intercepting fairly primitive Iraqi rockets. Even the current systems, in tests, have shot down less than half of the missiles they targeted since 1999. Because tests are typically done under ideal conditions, recent results have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the current system.

Despite the existing limitations of missile defense technology, these systems are still viewed as a threat by other countries. The thinking goes that they encourage the opposing side to build up their missiles to counteract the missile defense system, essentially creating an arms race. In the recent circumstances–both in Guam and now South Korea–China’s concern has focused on the radar technology included in the THAAD system, which China fears will be used to spy on it. While both the U.S. and South Korea have emphasized that the system is only there to protect against potential launches from North Korea, the Chinese have responded by placing economic sanctions on South Korea.

The accompanying video looks at the THAAD system and why China does not want it installed on the Korean Peninsula:

Missile Treaties

To counter fears of an arms race and other threats, numerous treaties have been ratified to reduce the number and types of missiles in the field. The most important treaty regarding missile defense was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed in 1972. The purpose of this treaty was to prevent arms races by limiting defense systems that would neutralize attacks. The idea was that both sides having the ability to destroy each other would serve as a deterrent. If one side developed an effective missile defense system, the other would need to make faster or more lethal missiles, leading to a consistent buildup.

This logic was fairly effective and, along with the inability to develop an effective missile defense system, prevented the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and later Russia, from developing adequate defense systems. However, in 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because it wanted to develop a more robust system. But all the United States has developed so far is an unreliable and expensive system that has still left many uneasy.

Conclusion 

Missiles are an old and well-tested technology capable of delivering nuclear weapons around the globe with considerable precision. Conversely, missile defense is still relatively untested and often fails to provide what its name would literally suggest. Why then are certain parties so reassured by missile defense and others so agitated?

The answer is that every missile defense system is at the same time a missile launcher and when a system is close to a foreign border it makes the situation uncomfortable. It also forces the countries involved to continuously counter each other’s capabilities. This has been the case in several instances throughout history and will likely continue as long as adversaries are placing their missiles close to one another. While there have been treaties in place to address this issue, the most important one was nullified by U.S. withdrawal. The future then is likely to continue much as the present–barring one country or a group of countries offering to disarm.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does it Mean for the U.S. to Put a Missile Defense System in South Korea? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, House Republican leaders introduced their new health care plan, the American Health Care Act. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and on March 24 the bill was withdrawn, largely because of Republican infighting. Republican moderates worried that the bill was too extreme, and would be harmful for their constituents. But Republicans further to the right disagreed, arguing that the bill actually didn’t go far enough. Those right-wing Republicans were led by the House Freedom Caucus, a caucus that has only been in existence for two years, but in the Trump era, has made quite a name for itself. Read on to learn more about the inception of the House Freedom Caucus, its ideology, and its members.

History of the House Freedom Caucus

The formation of the House Freedom Caucus was announced in January 2015. Its founding members were all hardline Republican representatives: Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida, and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. The nine founders reportedly planned their new caucus at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a few weeks before they announced its formation.

According to a statement that offices of the members released:

The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable, and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.

The House Freedom Caucus is notably more conservative than the rest of the House, and Americans in general. According to Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone:

The Freedom Caucus acts like a third party in Washington because the political fates of its members are not yoked to the national GOP. Their districts rate R+13, according to Cook Political Report data crunched by Rolling Stone. This means their districts vote 13 percent more Republican than the nation as a whole — and are nearly a third more partisan than the median GOP seat (R+10).

The Split from the Republican Study Committee 

The House Freedom Caucus was an offshoot of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a much larger, but traditionally very conservative, caucus. However, in 2015, the year the House Freedom Caucus was founded, some conservative Republicans thought the RSC had become too centrist. The RSC had also become quite clunky and large–it currently has over 170 members.

Reports on whether the House Freedom Caucus’s split from the RSC was amicable have differed. The founding members tactfully told the press that they believed a smaller, more mobile organization was needed to pull the party to the right. Some members of the House Freedom Caucus remained as RSC members, while others left the larger group.

The House Freedom Caucus and House Speaker John Boehner

Congressman John Boehner announced that he would step down from the position of Speaker of the House in September of 2015. He had held the post since 2011, when Republicans gained majority control of the House.

It was reported that Boehner stepped down, at least in part, due to pressure from the House Freedom Caucus. If all of the 30-odd members of the caucus had refused to support him, he would not have had enough votes to remain the House leader. The House Freedom Caucus members wanted Boehner to push harder on some far-right issues, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

Who are the Current Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

No one is completely sure. The invite-only group isn’t public with its roster. However, a number of media outlets have identified the members who have been open about their relationship to the caucus. Here are the congressmen who are believed to currently be part of the House Freedom Caucus:

• House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows, North Carolina
• Alex Mooney, West Virginia
• Andy Harris, Maryland
• Bill Posey, Florida
• Brian Babin, Texas
• Dave Brat, Iowa
• David Schweikert, Arizona
• Gary Palmer, Alabama
• Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
• Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
• Jim Jordan, Ohio
• Jody Hice, Georgia
• Joe Barton, Texas
• Justin Amash, Michigan
• Ken Buck, Colorado
• Mark Sanford, South Carolina
• Mo Brooks, Alabama
• Morgan Griffith, Virginia
• Paul Gosar, Arizona
• Rand Weber, Texas
• Raul Labrador, Idaho
• Rod Blum, Texas
• Ron DeSantis, Florida
• Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
• Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
• Steve Pearce, New Mexico
• Ted Yoho, Florida
• Tom Garrett Jr., Virginia
• Trent Franks, Arizona
• Warren Davidson, Ohio

Who are the Former Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

There are also some former members associated with the caucus. These include congressmen who lost re-election bids in 2016, including founding member Scott Garrett of Florida and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Former Congressmen John Fleming of Louisiana and Marlin Stutzman of Indiana ran for other positions and were defeated.

Retired Congressmen Curt Clawson of Florida, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Matt Salmon of Arizona also used to be counted among the members. Lummis seems to be the only female member ever associated with the caucus, so as it currently stands, the caucus appears to be entirely male. One founding member, Mick Mulvaney, was appointed by President Donald Trump as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore is no longer in the House of Representatives.

There were some members who decided to remove themselves from House Freedom Caucus membership. Congressmen Tom McClintock of California and Reid Ribble of Wisconsin quit after the group’s role in forcing Boehner out of the Speaker of the House position. After he quit, McClintock said: “I feel that the HFC’s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it.” And Ribble took his complaints a step farther, saying:

I was a member of the Freedom Caucus in the very beginning because we were focused on making the process reforms to get every Member’s voice heard and advance conservative policy. When the Speaker resigned and they pivoted to focusing on the leadership race, I withdrew.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania resigned from the caucus last winter, saying that although his ideology still matched the group’s, he wanted to focus on “substantive policy work rather than procedural mechanisms the group uses to exert influence.” Representative Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, also quit quietly, saying that he just didn’t have the “bandwith” to be in the group.

Most recently, Representative Ted Poe, from Texas, quit the House Freedom Caucus after the group’s role in the health care bill failure at the end of March. Poe said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” that he felt as though the caucus was saying “no” too much:

The president, Speaker Ryan, came to the Freedom Caucus and made some changes that we wanted several times. But no matter what changes were made, the goal post kept getting moved and at the end of the day, ‘no’ was the answer. And sometimes you’re going to have to say yes.

Poe chose to resign, saying that, “at some time we’re going to have to say ‘yes.’ We are in power. We need to lead.”

The Freedom Caucus in the News

Since its inception, the two most news-worthy events involving the House Freedom Caucus were its founding, and its role in John Boehner’s resignation. But the Freedom Caucus was recently vaulted into the spotlight with the AHCA controversy.

The American Health Care Act

Regardless of whether the assessment is fair or not, the House Freedom Caucus has been largely blamed by the media, President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and others, for the bill’s failure.

The big sticking point with the AHCA for many of the members was that it wasn’t conservative enough, and didn’t provide for a full repeal. At one point, it was reported that the Trump Administration was negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus to secure the needed votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. The Trump Administration offered to get rid of “essential health benefits” that were guaranteed under Obamacare. These essential health benefits included maternity care, emergency room visits, and mental health services. But, the Freedom Caucus still claimed that the bill didn’t go far enough, and on March 24, the bill was pulled.

Trump’s Attack 

In the wake of the AHCA withdrawal, President Donald Trump started criticizing the House Freedom Caucus. On March 27, Trump tweeted: “The Republican House Freedom Caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” He followed that up on March 30, by tweeting: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” The verified Twitter account for the House Freedom Caucus responded to Trump’s criticism on March 31, saying that the group wants to hold true to its promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and arguing that only 17 percent of Americans supported the AHCA.

Conclusion

The House Freedom Caucus is relatively new, having just been founded in 2015, and best known for being involved in Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resignation. But in the Trump era, with both the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by the Republican Party, the House Freedom Caucus has become an increasingly influential part of GOP House dynamics. What the group will do with that newfound power remains to be seen.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the House Freedom Caucus? appeared first on Law Street.

Terminal illnesses are a heartbreaking reality of life–in many cases, doctors can only provide care to help patients feel less pain in their remaining days. But, some activists believe that it doesn’t have to be that way, and that patients with terminal illnesses should be able to have control over their deaths. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in six states in the United States, and multiple states have weighed whether or not to allow it in the last few years. Read on to learn what physician-assisted suicide is, where it’s legal, and the arguments for and against the controversial practice.

What is Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Physician-assisted suicide is the prescribing of some sort of life-ending drug to a patient by a doctor. The patient then takes the steps to end their own life. Physician-assisted suicide should not be confused with euthanasia–in euthanasia, the physician physically performs the death-causing act. There are other names for physician-assisted suicide, including “physician-assisted death,” “aid-in-dying,” “right to die,” and “death with dignity.”

Across states that have legalized the practice of physician-assisted suicide, the process varies. But there are some consistent elements–only licensed medical doctors (M.D.s) or doctors of osteopathy (D.O.s) can issue the prescription. Additionally, doctors must be willing to issue the prescriptions–by no means are they obligated to do so. Many of the states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide also require that there’s some sort of waiting period between when a patient requests the procedure and when it’s granted, and that multiple doctors are consulted in the decision.

Where is Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?

Currently, there are six states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, and Montana. It is also legal in Washington D.C.

Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1994, with 51 percent of Oregon voters voting for it. However it wasn’t enacted until 1997. That was just a few months after the Supreme Court decided in Washington v. Glucksberg that state laws banning physician-assisted suicide are not unconstitutional. This meant that the decision of whether or not to legalize physician-assisted suicide would be left up to each state to determine; other Supreme Court rulings have since continued to validate that it’s a matter for states to decide.

In 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, via a voter referendum. In Washington, terminally ill residents who have less than six months to live may request drugs that would end their lives.

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled on Baxter v. Montana, and became the first case to essentially legalize physician-assisted suicide through a court case. Although there was no regulatory framework for physician-assisted suicide set up in the state, it ensured that a doctor cannot be prosecuted for the act.

In 2013, Vermont became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide through its state legislature. Like many of the other laws, it includes caveats, including that terminally ill patients need to make multiple requests and wait 15 days after their initial request.

Then, in 2015, the California legislature passed the End of Life Option Act. Like the other states, California put certain restrictions on physician-assisted suicide. The patient must be at least 18, must have a diagnosis that will–within reasonable medical judgment–result in death within six months, and be deemed competent to make medical decisions, among other restrictions.

On November 8, 2016, Colorado voters voted in favor of Proposition 106, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state. Almost two-thirds of Coloradans voted in favor of the proposition, which like other states’ legalization measures, requires that the patient has less than six months to live, and is deemed competent to make a decision to end their life.

In late 2016, Washington DC’s council approved a Death with Dignity law, and Mayor Muriel Bowser signed it into law. However, based on the way that DC is set up, Congress has the ability to block laws enacted by the district. While Congress did not succeed in blocking this particular law, it has been known to prevent the city from setting up successful regulatory frameworks through budgetary measures, which could still happen.

Have Other States Tried to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide?

Many states have introduced some sort of law or measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide recently, with most floundering. Michigan lawmakers proposed a physician-assisted suicide bill in late March 2017. Hawaii’s House of Representatives “deferred” a physician-assisted suicide bill, essentially killing it for now. New Mexico’s Senate just voted down a physician-assisted suicide bill. Other states have considered or may consider bills soon, including Maine, while others, like Kansas, are considering resolutions that would ban physician-assisted suicide. For many of the states considering legalizing physician-assisted suicide, it’s not the first time. In the mid-1990s, when the debate about physician-assisted suicide first began to heat up, measures failed in many states.

Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Most arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide cite humanitarian arguments. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that if an individual knows he’s going to die within the next six months, it’s cruel to force him to suffer through it. Instead, physician-assisted suicide allows him to end his life on his own terms, humanely and peacefully. Currently, mentally-competent people have the ability to refuse potentially life-saving treatments. Those in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide argue that it’s a similar concept.

Real Life Example: Brittany Maynard

In 2014, the story of Brittany Maynard captivated the nation. Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer. After trying treatments, none of which were successful in the long term, Maynard decided to end her own life. She became an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, and in many ways, a modern face of the movement. Maynard and her family moved to Oregon from California, as this was before California had legalized the practice. Maynard wrote an op-ed about her decision, explaining why she believed that physician-assisted suicide was the right choice for her, and explaining that her decision wasn’t about being “suicidal,” but about having an option at the end of her life:

I’ve had the medication for weeks. I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.

I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?

Now that I’ve had the prescription filled and it’s in my possession, I have experienced a tremendous sense of relief. And if I decide to change my mind about taking the medication, I will not take it.

Maynard did take her own life, in November of 2014, and remains a face of the movement to extend physician-assisted suicide.

Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

Those who disagree with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide argue that suicide, regardless of the reasons, is immoral and should not be condoned by the government in any way, shape, or form. Many religious institutions argue against physician-assisted suicide; in some ways, it’s become linked to the pro-life movement. Others argue that physician-assisted suicide inherently creates issues for doctors, as the Hippocratic Oath essentially prescribes that doctors are not supposed to harm their patients. There are also concerns about a slippery slope–if we make any sort of physician-assisted suicide legal, we may open up the door to euthanasia or other harmful practices. Some who advocate against physician-assisted suicide argue that there’s no way to definitively guarantee that it’s completely a patient’s choice to request medicine that would end his life–they worry that a doctor or family member could pressure a patient.

Real Life Example: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was known as an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, but was found guilty of second-degree murder for actually administering drugs to one patient himself, and served eight years in prison. Dr. Kevorkian, nicknamed Dr. Death, was believed to have assisted in over 130 suicides throughout his career. He used multiple methods, including setting up ways for patients to inject drugs into themselves, carbon monoxide poisoning, and his infamous “suicide machine,” which was built into the back of a van.

There were claims that Dr. Kevorkian crossed serious ethical lines with his practices. An analysis conducted by a team at the University of South Florida at Tampa of 69 assisted suicides supervised by Dr. Kevorkian claimed that 75 percent of his patients were not terminally ill.

While some defend Dr. Kevorkian as a pioneer, his methods remain controversial, and are often cited as an argument against physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusion

In addition to ethical and moral arguments, there are many other concerns that come to mind when considering physician-assisted suicide. For one, the drugs that are used for physician-assisted suicide are very expensive, and not necessarily easy to get. A patient looking to move forward with physician-assisted suicide must find a doctor willing to help, which can pose challenges, even in states that have legalized the practice. And while the publicity surrounding Brittany Maynard certainly garnered attention for the physician-assisted suicide movement, she died in 2014, and momentum for state laws may be waning. But one thing is certain: the debate over physician-assisted suicide is very far from over.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Right to Die?: The Argument Over Physician-Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

America’s education system has become increasingly more complicated in recent years, as U.S. students continue to lag behind many other industrialized nations in academic achievement. In new data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) on international math and science assessments, U.S. students ranked an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. While the U.S. is one of the most advanced nations on the planet, public education remains a dismal system in the states. Many seeking to improve the status of education advocate for school choice, touting voucher programs and charter schools as the ideal method to fix America’s broken school system. The guaranteed effectiveness of these methods, however, is questionable given extensive research–begging the question: is school choice the right choice?

What is School Choice?

School choice allows for parents to pick any traditional public school or charter school in a particular school district. The movement for school choice is attributed to Milton Friedman’s 1955 essay, “The Role of Government in Education,” in which he proposed giving families redeemable vouchers for educational services. Following the essay’s release, the concept of freedom of choice in education gained popularity.

Arguably, school choice is a favorite among large corporations and more wealthy conservatives, although some Democrats, including President Barack Obama, support the idea (Obama called for expanding charter schools when first addressing Congress in 2009). The education style is backed mostly by right-wing organizations and business such as the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and the Koch brothers, some of the world’s richest and best known political donors. Even with the support of some moderate conservatives and liberals, the primary backers of school choice are extremely conservative activists seeking to radically transform public education in America. While school choice is touted as a social justice movement and a program committed to procuring effective education for all children, it does have some serious issues.

Research has found that school choice actually widens the achievement gap between white and black children. Moreover, it often advocates dismantling public education, rather than attempting to make it stronger. It has often become a mechanism of privatizing education and defunding public schools, starving the remaining public institutions of funds and quality teachers.

The concept of school choice may be fueling the transformation of public education into a business. The reason many corporations favor the school choice model is that it allows the wealthy to profit off of the education system. Teachers may also experience more punitive environments; as parents begin to choose schools because of performances on standardized tests, teachers will receive the full blame when students score poorly on a high-stakes test. Making a teacher the scapegoat for lackluster performance shifts blame to an individual, rather than tackling the systemic problems in education.

Charter Schools

Charter schools have become an increasingly popular choice around the country. These schools are publicly funded, but are governed by appointed boards and tend to be run by private companies. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia allow charter schools, with 22 states having some sort of cap that limits the number of charter schools.

Charter schools were first created in Minnesota and endorsed by Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Specifically, charter schools are public schools that are accountable via a contract or “charter” to public bodies; if they fail to meet the agreed-upon terms of the charter, they can be shut down quickly. Charters are also accountable for student performance on standardized tests. However, in a 2009 Stanford study, only 17 percent of charter schools were found to provide better education than public schools.

Charter schools may also have negative consequences for traditional public schools. A 2015 study from Michigan State University’s Education Policy Center determined that exceedingly high percentages of charter schools had a devastating impact on poorer school districts in Michigan, such as Detroit. Unlike other states, roughly 80 percent of Michigan’s charter schools are run by for-profit companies. Once charter schools reached 20 percent or more enrollment, it became far more difficult for the traditional schools to compete.

Vouchers

School vouchers are government certificates, backed by state dollars, that allow parents to choose which school to send their children to, including private or religious institutions. Vouchers have come under intense criticism for diverting public money away from public schools and have been accused of disproportionately assisting wealthy white families, while neglecting minorities in poorer communities–ultimately reducing diversity in classrooms and  fostering segregation. The National Education Association, the largest labor union in the U.S. representing public school teachers and other support personnel, is a strong, vocal opponent of school vouchers.

Those who support vouchers argue that the programs are actually more diverse. Many voucher programs are targeted to specific populations, such as low-income students or students with disabilities. Moreover, research conducted in Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. found that money was not necessarily drained from public schools because of school vouchers. Instead the program assisted in saving Wisconsin money and infused the city of D.C. with federal funds in exchange for passing a voucher program.

But major studies of voucher programs tell a different story. In late 2015, results from a study on the Indiana voucher program found that voucher students who transferred to private schools experienced significant losses in achievement and no real improvement in reading. In a study of Louisiana’s program, researchers found large negative results in both reading and math; elementary school students who started in the 50th percentile in math and then used a voucher to transfer to a private school plummeted to the 26th percentile in just one year. Finally, a third voucher study in Ohio uncovered that students who used vouchers to attend private schools actually performed worse academically compared to closely matched peers attending public school.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and School Choice

The appointment of Besty DeVos, a conservative philanthropic billionaire, as the Secretary of Education, will likely ramp up lobbying for school choice programs. As the new Department of Education head, she is committed to making vouchers and other school choice policies the heart of education reform. DeVos, someone with no real public school experience, has even stated that historically black colleges and universities were “pioneers” of school choice. While that is certainly not the case, her statement illuminates her naivety and the new administration’s willingness to push school choice programs.

“Betsy DeVos” Courtesy of Gage Skidmore : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Over the years, DeVos has been ardent supporter of vouchers for private religious schools. DeVos was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, a conservative Dutch Calvinist denomination. In a 2001 interview for The Gathering, a group focused on advancing the Christian faith via philanthropy, DeVos stated that there were “not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education…Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God’s kingdom.”

Critics note that DeVos is attempting to change the definition of school choice to allow taxpayer money to follow students to any private school through vouchers. This implementation of “universal school choice” would allow funds to funnel into religious private schools. Trump’s education proposal calls for allotting $20 billion in federal money to help parents choose schools that are not “failing,” and instead send students to charter, private, or religious schools.

Conclusion

Many educators oppose the idea of school choice and privatizing education, noting that diversity is a critical aspect of well-rounded learning. Private schools may encourage too much student withdrawal, sheltering students from the rigors of real-world experiences with such specialized educational amenities and services. The research surrounding the efficacy of charter schools and voucher programs appears to tell a more complex story. More school choice does not necessarily lead to better results. Moreover, the U.S. should tread carefully when attempting to privatize the public education system. The American public school system’s ultimate goal should be ensuring that students are equipped with the knowledge necessary to become responsible, informed, and contributing citizens.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Choice: Is It the Future of the American Public School System? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump recently issued a revised travel ban temporarily preventing people from six countries and all refugees from entering the United States. The original ban was immediately met with condemnation, protest, and legal action, leading the administration to change course. The revised version amounts to a significant scaling back relative to the original, but many of the longer term consequences remain the same. While this is the most recent and perhaps one of the most chaotic efforts to control who comes into the United States, it is far from the first. The history of U.S. immigration policy is littered with restrictions, quotas, and preferences for certain groups. Read on further to find out how President Trump’s executive action fits in the long lexicon of American immigration policy.

History of Immigration

The United States is and has been a land of immigrants long before it was even a country. European migration began in the 16th century, first with the French and Spanish then later with the English, who founded their first permanent colony in Jamestown in 1607. Many of the earliest European settlers traveled either to avoid religious persecution in their native land or to seek better opportunities. There was also a dark side to this original mass migration. Many white Europeans arrived as indentured servants and even more black slaves were forcibly removed from Africa and brought to the new world.

The second batch of migrants, which came to the United States in the 19th century, was also predominantly from Western Europe. Along with English settlers, came large numbers of Irish and German migrants. Approximately 4.5 million Irish made their way to the United States between 1820 and 1930, settling mostly along the coast. Meanwhile, roughly five million Germans arrived during the 19th century and often moved into the interior of the country. These groups were also joined by a large number of Chinese workers who came to the United States in search of gold. The Chinese immigrants tended to settle in the western portions of the United States.

At the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the demographics of immigration shifted again. During this period there was a large rise in immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. This was most clearly characterized by the nearly four million Italians who entered the United States. Following this wave, however, immigration slowed dramatically due to international events such as World War I and II, as well as the Great Depression. After World War II, refugees from Europe and the Soviet Union flocked to the U.S., along with those from Cuba following Castro’s rise. The video below from Business Insider provides a good illustration of where immigrants came from and when they arrived in the United States:

According to numbers from Pew Research Center, the highest percentage of foreign-born people living in the United States occurred back in 1890 when nearly 15 percent of the population was foreign-born. The lowest point occurred back in 1970 when just 5 percent of the population was born outside the United States. Recent data suggests we will likely reach a new high very soon. In 2015, about 14 percent of the population was foreign-born, a percentage that is projected to increase to nearly 18 percent by 2065.

The History of Immigration Restrictions

For almost as long as people have been migrating to the United States, policymakers have enacted a variety of different pieces of legislation to restrict immigration in general and for specific groups of people. First was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which made only free white people of good moral character who have lived in the U.S. for at least two years eligible for naturalization. This requirement was later changed to 14 years of residency and eventually back down to five years, due to political reasons. Another restriction was put in place in 1819 when Congress started requiring ship captains to provide a list of any foreign-born people onboard intending to immigrate.

Immigration restrictions did not really intensify until after 1850, which was the first time the U.S. Census asked what country people came from. This was followed by a dramatic increase in migration restrictions, particularly those targeting people from Asia. In 1862 the “Anti-Coolie” Act was passed with the aim of preventing Chinese immigration to California and forced California businesses that hired Chinese workers to pay an additional tax. There was also the Naturalization Act of 1870, which made free white people and “persons of African descent” and “nativity” eligible for naturalization but excluded Asians. Perhaps the most infamous example was the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, which barred all Chinese immigration for 10 years. This act was extended in 1892 by the Geary Act for 10 more years and then again indefinitely in 1902.

These restrictive measures extended into the 20th century as well, starting with the 1907 gentlemen’s agreement with Japan, where Japan agreed to discourage Japanese migration to the U.S. in exchange for more protections for Japanese people already in the U.S. There were additional restrictions at the state level as well, including in 1913 when California passed the Alien Land Law preventing Chinese and Japanese nationals from owning land. In 1917 Congress went a step further, banning immigration from many Asian countries with notable exceptions being Japan and the Philippines.

Another major immigration policy shift occurred in 1921 when the first of the Quota Acts was enacted. The law placed immigration quotas on countries to restrict the number of people from a certain country to three percent of the number that lived in the United States after the 1910 census. A similar act was passed in 1924 limiting the number of migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe to two percent of the 1890 levels. The adoption of the National Origins Formula delivered the final blow, completely banning immigration from Asia, while still allowing immigration from the Western Hemisphere.

It did not end with Asian immigrants either, as the Oriental Exclusion Act prohibited most immigration from Asia but also included foreign-born wives and the children of American citizens of Chinese ancestry. The Expatriation Act went even further, stating that an American woman who marries a foreign national loses her citizenship; this was partially repealed in 1922 but still held for women marrying Asian citizens. Even the Supreme Court entered the debate over race and citizenship in the case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. The court ruled that a caucasian man from India did not meet the definition of white person used in established immigration law, and therefore could not become a citizen.

In addition to people from Asia, other groups were also barred over the years for reasons that were not explicitly related to race or ethnicity. The Immigration Act of 1882, for example, put a $0.50 charge on people immigrating and forbid lunatics and those likely to become dependent on the state. The Alien Contract Labor Law was passed in 1885 to prohibit bringing foreign contract laborers to the country, except for certain industries. In 1891 Congress made polygamists, people with diseases, and those convicted of specific misdemeanors also ineligible for immigration. Political groups were also targeted–following the assassination of President William McKinley, Congress passed the Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1901 barring anarchists and political extremists.

Along with all these outright restrictions were a host of other measures to simply make the immigration process harder–like literacy tests on citizenship applications and additional agencies set up to oversee immigration–that, while not explicitly forbidding it, significantly hindered immigration for many groups. It was not until 1965 when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act that many of the quotas and restrictions were finally eliminated.

The video below gives an overview of the immigration practices of the United States:

Immigrants in the U.S. Today

Despite the complicated history of immigration policy, the number of foreign-born people in the United States has increased dramatically since 1965. As of 2015, there were about 43.3 million foreign-born people living in the United States, which is approximately 13.5 percent of the total population. Of that amount, about 20 million are naturalized citizens, with the rest being permanent residents, people with temporary status, and people who entered the country illegally. The Pew Research Center estimates that in 2014 there was a total of 11.1 million foreign-born people in the United States who entered the country illegally.

The immigrant population rose from 9.6 million in 1970 to the 43.3 million here today. Over that time, the primary source of immigrants has shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia. Specifically, in 2015 the top five countries of origin for new immigrants were: India, China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Canada. The 2015 numbers generally reflect the leading countries of origin for the total foreign-born population as well, which are led by Mexico, India, China, and the Philippines.

The immigrant population in the United States skews slightly female, at a little more than 50 percent. It is also older than the general U.S. population with a median age of 43.5 years. Demographically, nearly half of immigrants identify themselves as white, a little more than a quarter identify as Asian, and about 9 percent identify themselves as black. Ethnically, Hispanics and latinos are the largest group of immigrants, representing about 45 percent. In terms of education, the percentage of immigrants with at least a bachelor’s degree is almost the same as the national average, at about 30 percent. And geographically, states that border Mexico or have large population centers tend to have the most immigrants, with California leading the way followed by New York, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey.

Immigration and the Economy

From 2009 to 2011, the amount of money earned by immigrants was nearly 15 percent percent of all U.S. wages, although immigrants make up 13 percent of the overall population. Immigrants are more likely to be prime working age and work in higher proportions relative to their share of the population. Immigrants also own nearly one-fifth of all small businesses. Finally, nearly half of all immigrants work in white collar jobs and are often overrepresented in some middle-class occupations such as nursing.

While immigrants are working in disproportionately high numbers, they also generally do not harm the work opportunities for most native-born Americans either. While immigration’s effects on domestic workers is a hotly debated subject, many economists agree that it provides an overall economic benefit, although it could also have significant economic consequences for certain groups. In the long-run, immigrants can actually be beneficial to the American job market overall. Moreover, when immigrants drive wages down, it is often because they lack the protections that American citizens have and thus are susceptible to exploitation.

Immigrants, particularly undocumented workers, often pay into programs such as Social Security, which they cannot draw from, and are actually a net positive for the national budget. A review from the Social Security Administration found that undocumented workers paid as much as $13 billion into Social Security in 2010–which came in the form of payroll taxes from immigrants using fraudulent identification–but only received about $1 billion in benefits.

Aside from economic impacts, immigrants also affect American society in other positive ways. These include introducing new or different foods and cooking styles, presenting alternative forms of spirituality, and even incorporating non-traditional medical treatments.

Conclusion

The words inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York read, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” These inspiring words, originally written by the poet Emma Lazarus, perfectly encapsulate the ideals that many speak of when they refer to the United States as a nation of immigrants. However, for much of the nation’s history, the people and practices of this country have failed to live up to that ideal.

Donald Trump’s ban, while definitely not the first, is the latest in a long line of efforts to restrict immigration from certain areas and for certain groups of people. Although these restrictions are often passed under the guise of being in the best interest of America or its citizens, they can have the opposite effect. This is because immigrants are often willing to do many of the jobs native born citizens will not, at lower wages. Despite the United States’ complicated history, immigrants have continuously added to and enriched American culture.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Before the Ban: The History of U.S. Immigration Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Last November, India began a campaign to eliminate large bills from its currency by removing 500 and 1,000 rupee notes from circulation. The goal was to go after criminals guilty of everything from tax evasion to drug trafficking by eliminating their means of accumulating wealth. This is not just a limited effort, however, as other countries, including the United States, are monitoring the situation in India and considering following suit. Read on to see if the U.S. is ready to actually scrap the $100 bill, what impact it will have on the country, and if the rest of the world is likely to follow suit.

India’s Move

The move by India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was aimed at recouping some of the estimated $460 billion in untaxed wealth, which is equal to as much as 20 percent of India’s GDP. Modi was also seemingly attempting to fulfill a campaign promise to go after so-called “black money” in the economy. Despite these motivations, this led to a massive cash shortage that instead ended up affecting the poor the most and caused the IMF to slash their growth forecasts for India by a full percent. Nonetheless, even though the government failed to take these factors into account, some people hid their wealth in items such as gold, and the fact that the 500 rupee is not really a large bill, the move was still widely popular. The video below looks at the impact of the Indian government’s decision to eliminate the 500 and 1,000 rupee notes:

U.S. Efforts

There have also been calls in the United States that large bills should be eliminated, although the exact methods with which the nation would do so are unlikely to copy those used by India. The charge here is being led by Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, whose plan calls for eliminating any bill larger than $10 over a 15-20 year time period. The goal would be similar to that of India, namely to target tax evaders and money launderers. Rogoff claims this would be an especially effective move on the part of the U.S. because 75 percent of the $100 bills worldwide are actually held abroad, many by Mexican cartel leaders and Russian oligarchs. Rogoff believes that, since most transactions in the United States are done electronically, unlike in India, eliminating these bills would not be a major change.

While Rogoff and other Harvard economists such as Peter Sands have suggested making the change, there is still no plan to eliminate big bills as of yet; in fact, there is actually strong pushback against the idea. A group of government agencies that include the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the Drug Enforcement Agency are opposing the move for a number of reasons.

The first reason that people are opposed to the move is cost: removing $100 bills and replacing them with twice as many $50 bills would wipe out any profit made by the government through printing money. Second would be usage: while many people do not carry $100 bills, about 5.2 percent of the U.S. population still do, which equals millions of people. Lastly, although criminals may be inconvenienced by having to literally carry more bills, eliminating $100 bills would just force them to use other bills or find other means to accumulate wealth. In fact, cash shipments in smaller bills have already been seized at the border. The following video looks at whether or not the U.S. is likely to eliminate the $100 bill, and some of its potential effects:

Impact on Economy

Economically, a switch to smaller bills or to no cash altogether is also a mixed bag. As mentioned earlier, by eliminating larger bills, the government would lose out on profit made from the difference in printing the bills versus the cost of printing, because higher bills generate more revenue. The term for this is seigniorage. The estimated cost would be roughly $6 billion annually, which may seem like a lot but pales in comparison to what the government alternatively spends fighting crime funded by cash and large bills.

A potential positive economic impact of the move would be in regards to monetary policy. During recessions, central banks lower their interest rates, which makes keeping money in savings accounts less appealing and instead encourages spending. However, there is something known as the “zero lower bound,” where the interest rate actually becomes negative and banks start charging people to save their own money. At this point, rational people would withdraw their money and keep the cash until interest rates were raised. This would be much harder to do with many smaller bills and impossible if there were no bills at all.

A Global Movement?

Whether or not the United States decides to follow India’s lead in eliminating large bills, the movement is not dead on arrival. Nearly two decades ago Canada eliminated the $1,000 bill from its currency to combat the very same criminal activities India is targeting. Singapore is eliminating its $10,000 bill as well. India is not even the only nation in the developing world doing away with large notes, as Venezuela recently outlawed its $100 bill with the goal of fighting crime. There is even some precedent in the United States: in 1969, the United States did away with $500, $1,000, $5,000 and $10,000 bills because of lack of use, as they were almost entirely utilized for moving money between different Federal Reserve branches.

It is in Europe, however, where the most aggressive steps have already been taken. Last march, the European Union announced it will discontinue using the 500-euro note and stop replacing it entirely by 2018. While other large currency notes are often used by criminals, the 500-euro note had become so ubiquitous among criminals that it had garnered the unflattering nickname “the Bin Laden” after the former terrorist leader. But some critics are quick to point out, as they have in other countries, that eliminating big bills just forces illicit funds into other venues. Some also contend that this is a way to force people to spend more, because banks would be forced to use negative interest rates to reduce the larger number of bills in their safes. The accompanying video looks at the impact of eliminating the 500-euro bill on Europe:

Some countries in Europe have gone even further: in Sweden, for example, there is an unofficial yet concerted effort to do away with cash entirely. In that country, only 2 percent of national wealth is held in bills or coins and only about 20 percent of total transactions are processed in cash, so the move makes some sense. However, a switch of this magnitude and nature does not come without consequences. People who do not have access to the apps that are replacing cash and cards, such as older individuals and refugees, may find themselves unable to pay for basic necessities if the transition is made. Additionally, if all transactions are made electronically they are more susceptible to hacking and government oversight. Nevertheless, Sweden is not alone in this push, with Denmark and Norway also following suit.

Conclusion

Reducing the supply of big bills or even eliminating cash altogether comes down to a simple cost benefit-analysis. Having smaller bills will force much of the money associated with the black market economy out into the open, and at the very least it will make it harder to carry. However, as had been mentioned, there are numerous alternatives to keeping illegal funds in cash.

Conversely, while by making transactions increasingly with cards or electronic forms of payment may make it harder to hide crime, it also makes everyday purchases easier to track. This includes not only tracking by the government, but also by websites or corporations. It would make it more likely that information will get stolen by hackers or other nefarious groups as well, simply because there are more opportunities. This is not even factoring in the effort it would take to acquaint many people with the new form of payment or the effect it could have on monetary policy.

In some places this trade-off has seemingly been deemed acceptable, but for the most part it has not caught on worldwide. Cash, even in large bills, is likely to remain king until security and privacy concerns are considered less of an issue compared to concerns over how criminals are hoarding their ill-gotten gains.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Not About the Benjamins: Is the United States on the Verge of Eliminating the $100 Bill? appeared first on Law Street.

One of President Donald Trump’s main campaign promises was to “build a wall” on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. During his first few days in office, President Trump signed an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement improvements. In Section 2 of the order, it reads that it is the policy of the executive branch to: “secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

Many of President Trump’s supporters are also ardent fans of the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite encountering intense opposition from Democrats and some Republicans, the Trump Administration appears to be committed to beginning construction as soon as possible. However, there may be roadblocks ahead for the massive security project, such as issues of eminent domain and private citizens blocking or severely slowing construction of the wall, in addition to environmental concerns and waivers that must be obtained before beginning construction.

Border Wall Plans

Border security is critically important to our overall national security. As noted by the order, aliens who illegally enter the U.S. without inspection or admission present “a significant threat to national security and public safety.” President Trump’s executive order seeks to expedite determinations of any apprehended individual’s claims that they are eligible to remain in the U.S., as well as promptly remove any individuals whose claims have been lawfully rejected.

“Mexico / US Pacific Ocean Border Fence” Courtesy of Tony Webster : License (CC BY 2.0)

A critical component of Trump’s presidential campaign was regaining control of America’s borders. Now that he’s president, the particulars of how he will finance the massive border wall are still up for debate. The wall is estimated to cost $21.6 billion (though other estimates put it anywhere between $8 billion to $25 billion). The executive order signed by Trump in January contains no mention of the cost of construction. Mexico has repeatedly stated that not only will it not pay for the wall, but it will retaliate if a border tax is imposed. The order also required government agencies to report the financial assistance they gave Mexico in the past five years, giving rise to speculation that Trump wants to redirect the aid to pay for the wall.

Currently, there are hundreds of companies looking to profit significantly from the construction of a border wall. More than 375 companies have expressed interest in participating in the project. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency said it would likely begin accepting prototypes in March 2017. Those that are approved will be asked to submit full proposals. Surprisingly, a Mexican company, cement maker Cemex SAB, has stated that it would be willing to provide supplies to the project. The plan to seal the border would take three phases, with over 1,250 miles of fences and walls, and would be completed by 2020. San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas are expected to be part of the first phase. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report also showed that the U.S. government has begun seeking environmental waivers to build in specific areas.

Secure Fence Act of 2006

President Trump is not the first president to propose a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The goal of the act was to build 700 additional miles of physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, and authorize more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting. It also gave the Department of Homeland Security permission to use technology such as cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and specifically noted that there would be at least two layers of reinforced fencing. In 2006, both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported the act, including then-Senator Barack Obama.

In 2008, Congress introduced the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008, which called for Homeland Security to again construct more fencing. This time it asked for an additional 700 miles of two-layered, 14-foot high fencing along the southwestern border of the U.S., but the bill never made it out of committee. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, however, was amended in 2007 to give the Department of Homeland Security discretion in determining what type of fencing was appropriate, given the different terrain along the border. A one-size-fits-all approach, according to many, including the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), was not an effective manner to tackle securing the border.

Issues With Landowners

Once construction on the previous border wall began, the government ran into issues with landowners near the Rio Grande. Hundreds of landowners protested what they called a “government land grab” to install the fence. It resulted in 320 eminent domain cases being taken to court. In order to purchase property for the construction of the wall, USBP had to settle with private landowners. While some settled out of court, others are still fighting.

Some private property owners want more money, while others want a gate in the fence to be able to access their land on the other side. Eloisa Tamez, 81, was given a code to get through a gate to access a quarter of her three-acre ancestral property that was bisected by the 18-foot barricade. A prominent border wall opponent, Tamez battled her case in court for seven years, before she eventually lost to the government. She was awarded $56,000 for her loss of land and the inconvenience, but says she wasn’t looking for money–she wanted to keep her land without the barriers.

The government almost always wins in eminent domain or condemnation cases, but these cases can take a significant amount of time and resources to settle. Therefore, landowners fighting President Trump’s proposed border project may have the ability to slow the project down immensely. NPR analyzed more than 300 fence cases, and found that two-thirds of them have been settled, with most taking about 3.5 years for a resolution and usually involving under an acre of land. The median settlement awarded to landowners was $12,600.

Other Concerns and Considerations

Aside from the eminent domain, private property rights, and human rights concerns with building a border wall, there are also environmental considerations. Arguably, the full construction of a wall will interfere with the migration of animals and plant pollination. Immense amount of traffic around the wall will destroy flora and fauna, potentially leaving large amounts of garbage and debris in the area as well. These environmental concerns do not seem to be of much importance to those in favor of construction.

“Double Wall Near Tijuana” Courtesy of Jonathan McIntosh : License (CC BY 2.0)

Juanita Molina, the executive director of Border Action Network, told NPR that construction of the wall could cause flooding issues. A wall will profoundly affect the connectivity of species, fragmenting habitats, and block the free movement of wildlife. So, the border wall has the potential to spread detrimental consequences not just to humans, but also to other species. Additionally, building over major physical barriers, like mountains which dot the U.S.-Mexico border, make the border wall almost impossible to build.

Moreover, it is clear that the wall will disproportionately affect people of color. Militarization of the border means that minority communities will be targeted and even displaced. Millions of people live on both sides of the border. In the four states–California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona–on the U.S. side of the border, people of Mexican origin comprise at least a quarter of the total population, and even higher concentrations exist within 100km of the border itself.

Conclusion

The executive order signed on January 25, 2017, is still in effect. Many people who voted for President Trump view the wall as his signature campaign promise and expect to see progress made on its construction as soon as possible. Companies also seem to have an overwhelming amount of enthusiasm for profiting off the proposed construction. However, private property owners may have the most power in stalling the wall’s completion for a significant period of time, and the efficacy of a wall in actually securing the borders is certainly up for debate. For now, President Trump has promised that construction is “going to start very soon. Way ahead of schedule. It’s way, way, way ahead of schedule.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump’s Border Wall Actually Be Built? appeared first on Law Street.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was created more than 40 years ago and is considered by many to be an overwhelming success. Rarely has legislation ever remained in its original state over several decades; however, in its long history, the ESA has only been amended four times (1978, 1982, 1988, and 2004), with the most substantial amendments occurring in 1978. Despite many political attempts to reform the act, it seems to be largely shielded from modifications.

Under a new administration, however, efforts to delist a particular species or otherwise weaken the standing law have gained significant strength. Despite the efficacy of the act, concerns over burdensome regulations and negative impacts on private property rights have many concerned that the ESA is not as streamlined as it needs to be. Hearings began in February 2017 to “modernize” the ESA, yet it is unclear exactly how “modern” this law will become.

History of the Endangered Species Act

“Male Passenger Pigeon” Courtesy cotinis : License (Public Domain)

The now-extinct passenger pigeon is largely responsible for the expansion of wildlife conservation efforts in the early 1900s. Once the most abundant bird in North America, the passenger pigeon’s sudden extinction (occurring in less than 50 years) captivated Americans who watched as the bird died out. Prior to the passenger pigeon, the whooping crane also garnered widespread attention when it began to disappear rapidly in the late 1890s, though it is still alive today.

The Lacey Act of 1900 was the first federal law to actually regulate commercial animal markets. The act made it unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase any fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any state or federal laws. That piece of legislation was later followed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, which both met little opposition before being implemented.

Yet the official predecessor to what we now know as the Endangered Species Act was in fact the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Initially, this act provided a means of listing native species as endangered and afforded them limited protections. This also signified a shift from regulating the taking of an animal to focusing more on habitat conservation and preservation. “Taking” an animal is defined in Section 3 of the act and can occur via direct and indirect actions. In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for Greater Oregon, a Supreme Court case decided in 1995, the Court concluded that habitat modification can cause “harm” to a listed animal, thereby causing a “take.”

In 1973, President Richard Nixon sought to overhaul the current law and pass comprehensive endangered species legislation, which brought about the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Written by a team of lawyers and scientists, the new law incorporated dozens of new principles and ideas. Currently, the ESA’s stated purpose is to protect species and “the ecosystems upon which they depend.” The ESA is managed by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The FWS oversees terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the NOAA handles marine species.

The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 implemented some significant changes to the ESA. It attempted to “retain the basic integrity of the ESA, while introducing some flexibility which will permit exemptions from the act’s requirements.” One of the most important changes was the creation of the Endangered Species Committee, commonly known as the “God Squad.” The committee is composed of seven Cabinet-level members, and members have the authority to allow the extinction of a species–hence the nickname–by completely exempting a federal agency from Section 7 requirements (after prior consultation with the FWS and NOAA). To date, only the whooping crane and the northern spotted owl have been exempted from Section 7.

Critical Provisions

The primary goal of the ESA is to prevent the extinction of plant and animal life; an ancillary goal is to recover and maintain populations as much as possible by removing or thwarting threats to their survival. There are a few sections of the act that are considered to be the most powerful in their effect: Sections 4, 7, and 9.

To be listed, a species must meet one of the five criteria listed in Section 4(a)(1) of the act. The listing process is lengthy, involving multiple steps before a species is accepted. A species may be delisted, but only after the committee considers if the threats have been eliminated or controlled. This is based on several factors, including population size and growth, and the stability of habitat quality and quantity. Section 4 also requires the designation of a “critical habitat” within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list, though it normally occurs several years afterwards. A critical habitat includes geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of the species and that may need special management or protection.

Section 7 prohibits any actions that jeopardize the survival of any endangered or threatened species, as well as actions that could destroy or adversely modify critical habitats of listed species. The section requires all federal agencies to engage in the consultation process with the FWS or NOAA before engaging in any action that may threaten a listed species. Each federal agency is required under Section 7 to confer with the Secretary of the Interior on any action to ensure that such activities are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction of or adverse modification of” designated critical habitats. As noted previously, the God Squad has the power to exempt a federal agency from this consultation process under Section 7, if they find no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency’s actions.

“Threatened northern spotted owl” Courtesy of USFWS Endangered Species : License (CC BY 2.0)

Lastly, Section 9 prohibits the “taking” of a listed species. It applies to both private and public actions, and applies whether a critical habitat has been designated or not. Section 9 also forbids possessing, selling, or transporting an animal that has been obtained by an unlawful “take,” as well as other prohibitions on imports, exports, and commercial activity. Section 3 of the act specifically defines a “take” as any activity that could “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” a listed species. Harm can occur both directly and indirectly, even via certain habitat modifications.

Proven Success Rate

Currently, there are a variety of species listed as threatened or endangered, including 374 mammals, 338 birds, 185 fish, and 138 reptile species, as well as many more insects, clams, snails, and others. The FWS also acknowledges that roughly 40 species on the list are robust enough in populations to be taken off the protected list. About one percent of the 2,000 species on the list have been delisted because they recovered from extinction.

“Bald Eagle” Courtesy of Pen Waggener : License (CC BY 2.0)

Over the course of its history, the ESA has been nearly 100 percent successful at preventing listed species from going completely extinct. Its successes include the gray wolf, bald eagle, and American crocodile, which are all now thriving species. Very few laws in the U.S. can tout such a high success rate. Only 30 species have disappeared after being placed on the list; many scientists argue that adding species to the list earlier, far before they reach the critical state of endangerment, would add immensely to the ESA’s success.

What Does the Future Hold?

There is now a push to “modernize” the ESA, which defenders of the law contend is an effort to weaken or gut the act completely. Hundreds of bills, introduced primarily by Republican lawmakers, are now seeking to delist a species or somehow weaken the ESA, though most have been unsuccessful. However, the ideal environment to implement significant changes to the act appears to be brewing on Capitol Hill.

Those in favor of overhauling the ESA argue that it imposes too many far-reaching regulatory burdens, particularly on the agricultural industry. Lawmakers point out that the ESA has had a negative impact on drilling, logging, and mining, along with stifling economic growth in these industries. Moreover, private property rights are a concern since the ESA can impose restrictions on property owners’ use of their land because of a listed species. There are estimations that roughly three-quarters of species listed under the ESA reside on private land. One lawmaker recently stated that the act has “never been used for the rehabilitation of a species,” claiming that it has only been utilized to control land.

Still, opponents of any changes to the law argue that the Obama Administration began delisting species significantly, removing a record 29 species from the ESA–more than all previous administrations combined. Modernization of the ESA, environmentalists and activists state, is merely an effort to destroy “the nation’s premier and most effective wildlife conservation law.” Some states, like California, are moving to pre-empt any significant changes to the ESA by passing legislation that would add state-level protections for species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Conclusion

Few laws have ever been as successful as the ESA, which has an almost 100 percent success rate in strengthening the population of listed species. Species take decades to recover, hence the low number of animals delisted since the act’s inception. However, there are legitimate concerns about the act’s effect on industries and private landowners. Now, with a new political landscape, significant changes to the law may be on the horizon. What that means for the hundreds of species still extremely threatened or in severe danger of extinction, is still up for debate.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Endangered Species Act: Should it be Modernized? appeared first on Law Street.

A recent study found that there has been a rise in insurance claims for obesity-linked illnesses, such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and sleep apnea. While the results of this study–completed by the nonprofit Fair Health, a national clearinghouse for claims data–is nothing new, it is one of the first to use actual claims data. This is important because claims data shows treatments actually rendered, which can help illustrate the medical costs associated with high obesity rates. Beyond the results of this specific study, though, the fact is that obesity has become a major problem in the United States for people of all ages. Read on to learn more about the American obesity epidemic, what is being done to fight it, and the outlook going forward.

Obesity in America

Obesity is a somewhat mysterious term, so it first bears clarifying. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a person is obese when his or her Body Mass Index is above 30 percent. BMI is calculated by dividing a person’s height by weight. A BMI above 40 percent is considered extreme or severe obesity. While BMI is a useful tool to help assess health on a basic level, it does not directly measure the amount of body fat a person has.

In 2014, 36 percent of adults in the United States were obese. According to estimates from 2008, obesity cost the nation approximately $147 billion for medical costs. On a more individual level, people who are obese spend $1,429 more on medical costs per year than people of normal weight. Not only does obesity have negative physical effects, but it can also have negative mental effects and lead to depression.

From a demographic perspective, obesity tends to affect certain groups more than others. Non-Hispanic black Americans have the highest age-adjusted rate of obesity, at 48.1 percent. They are followed closely by Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. The group with the lowest rate of obesity by far is Asian Americans, who have an average obesity rate of just 11.7 percent, which is well below the national average. Additionally, while obesity is on the rise in many demographic groups, middle-aged adults still have higher rates of obesity at 40.2 percent than both older adults and young adults.

Continuing along this same path, for men, there is not much of a correlation between income or education level and obesity. The one exception being that black and Mexican-American men with higher incomes are more likely to be obese than lower income men in the same groups. For women, a more widespread correlation exists–higher income and better-educated women of all races are less likely to be obese than women from the opposite income and education groupings. Geographically, there is a lower prevalence of obesity in states in the West and Northeast of the United States, with those in the Southeast having the highest rates of obesity. The following gives an overview of the facts behind the obesity epidemic:

Factors behind the Obesity Epidemic

So what causes obesity and what led to its rise? While many people may point to a simple lack of self-control to explain the prevalence of obesity, in many cases it is much more complicated than that. One of the major issues is genetics, namely different people absorb, store, and process food differently, which can make them more likely to gain weight.

In the same vein, medical problems that lead to inactivity, such as arthritis, can also contribute to obesity. Similarly, certain medications taken for completely unrelated conditions, such as depression, can cause weight gain. Age and pregnancy can lead to obesity as well, with people’s metabolisms generally slowing down as they get older and some women having difficulty losing weight after giving birth.

In addition to the physical factors, there are also several environmental factors at play. These include access to a place to exercise, knowledge of healthy cooking, and even being able to afford healthy food. Quitting smoking can affect someone’s weight as well, although its potential negative health effects are generally outweighed by its positives. Even a change in sleep patterns can lead to significant weight gain, as they can lead to hormonal changes that affect how food is digested.

Sometimes there are things completely beyond a person’s control, an example being meals at restaurants, which today are four times larger on average than they would have been back in the 1950s. Along with quantity and size, the cost of food also plays an important role in the rate of obesity. Since the 1970s the cost of food as a portion of income has gone down. Nor is all food is created equal, and while all food has gotten relatively cheaper, unhealthy foods tend to cost even less than healthy alternatives such as vegetables. Even if you set aside how healthy cheap food is, the sheer availability of food makes being obese more likely. While factors such as poor diet, family lifestyle, and inactivity can lead to obesity, they are clearly not the only causes.

Efforts to Reduce Obesity

While determining the causes of obesity has been a challenge, actually reducing it has been particularly difficult. However, that failure is not for a lack of trying. The CDC funds programs at the state and local level in an effort to reduce obesity by advocating for a combination of healthy eating habits and an active lifestyle. The CDC’s High Obesity Program provides grants to universities in areas with a high prevalence of obesity that involve a targeted approach to address the issue. Several states and cities have also implemented a range of policies to address health concerns, ranging from taxes on soda and sugary drinks to school nutrition programs.

There are many resources outside the government as well, in the form of non-governmental organizations that are focused on combatting obesity. A number of these organizations–like the Obesity Action Coalition or TOPS Club, inc–echo their government counterparts, preaching that a combination of education, healthy eating, and physical activity is necessary to combat the obesity epidemic.

The accompanying video looks at ways to fight obesity:

Nevertheless, for all the energy these organizations, government and non-government alike, are exerting their efforts seem to be in vain. In fact, despite major efforts in research, clinical care, and the development of various programs to counteract obesity, after more than 30 years there are few signs that suggest the fight against the epidemic is succeeding. While the overall trend has not reversed itself, some targeted efforts have managed to bring about success at the community level.

Going Forward

Obesity is a major factor in predictions that for the first time children growing up today may not outlive their parents. That is because obesity rates and body weights, in general, have skyrocketed over the last 40 to 50 years. From 1962 to 2006 the obesity rate among Americans grew from 13.4 percent to 35.1 percent. The average person today weighs 26 more pounds than he or she would have in the 1950s. A 2005 study found that if obesity trends continue on their current path, the life expectancy gains from the past several decades could flatline or even go in the opposite direction.

This troubling news concerning obesity comes at an especially bad time. With rates already increasing, government programs that target obesity prevention, in particular, could lose federal money. One of the many aspects of the Affordable Care Act involved the creation of a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which provided resources to important prevention programs–including some obesity-related grants–and makes up a sizable portion of the CDC’s total budget. With Congress debating whether or not to repeal the law, such funding could be cut. More than 300 public health organizations signed on to a letter to congressional leaders asking them not to get rid of the fund in January.

Investing in these public health interventions is becoming more important now than ever, as estimates indicate that the obesity epidemic will continue to be a problem in years to come. Two different studies predict that the obesity rate could continue to rise to 42 to 44 percent by 2030.

While this is an American epidemic, and America has the highest percentage of obese people, the United States is not the only place feeling the burden. Roughly 30 percent of the world’s population, or 2.1 billion people, are either overweight or obese. This trend affects both developed and developing countries alike, however, it affects them in different ways. In developed nations, men have higher rates of obesity whereas women in developing countries have higher rates.

Regardless of demographics, though, obesity rates are increasing all over the world much like they are in the United States. Also, like in the United States, preventive measures to reduce obesity have mostly failed. It has gotten to the point now that regions outside of North America and the West actually have the highest rates. Currently, the Middle East and North Africa have the highest adult obesity rates in the world.

Conclusion

While obesity tends to affect certain groups more than others, overall obesity rates have increased significantly in the past several decades. While obesity rates have leveled off among American youth in the past 10 years, they have continued to climb for adults and remain at record highs for both. Unfortunately, many of the attempts to reverse these trends have had little success so far. This is extremely troubling as obesity has gone from a problem to an epidemic.

The impact from rising obesity rates has the potential to be disastrous. Obesity already costs the United States alone hundreds of billions of dollars annually. For nations that cannot afford this level of care, obesity could lead many people to develop obesity-related diseases and complications without any way to treat or address them. While most efforts have failed to reverse the trend, some targeted interventions have been effective. Ultimately, the problem will need to be addressed at a larger scale for rates to decline.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Obesity Epidemic: What’s Behind One of America’s Largest Health Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Imagine you’re traveling to Washington D.C. for the weekend. You arrive at the airport and, instead of waiting in the extremely long cab line, order a Lyft. The Lyft takes you to your lodgings for the weekend–a room in a house that you found on Airbnb. When you get there, you’re hungry–after all it’s a long distance from your fictional location of origin. You order a sandwich from UberEats. While you eat, you miss your dog, but you remember that he’s in good hands with his Rover sitter. And you deserve this trip–you didn’t do all those extra tasks on TaskRabbit for nothing!

All of these companies–Lyft, Airbnb, Uber, Rover, TaskRabbit–are part of the sharing economy. Unthinkable just a decade ago, the sharing economy exploded seemingly overnight, creating new services for existing markets. And with those new services come new policy concerns, including regulation, competition with traditional services, and safety. Companies that are part of the sharing economy have plenty to lobby for and against. Read on to go behind-the-scenes with the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and follow the money behind lobbying for the sharing economy at the federal level.

Uber and Airbnb Go to Washington

Let’s look at two of the largest and most well-known sharing economy players to see how they’ve ended up in Washington–Uber and Airbnb. Founded in 2009 and 2008 respectively, Uber’s ridesharing and Airbnb’s roomsharing platforms quickly grew. But as they grew, so did some of their problems. Uber and Airbnb have both been battling regulations and concerns at local and state levels since their inception; take Uber’s exodus from Austin, Texas, or New York’s cracking down on Airbnb advertising. Both companies spend plenty of money fighting laws and regulations that could hurt their business models at the local and state levels. But, increasingly, they’ve started to set their sights on Washington D.C., and have begun lobbying Congress and federal agencies as well. That move makes sense–federal policy can have a significantly greater impact on both companies than that of one city or state. And as these companies look toward innovating for the future, they may very well need federal support.

Their efforts to lobby at the federal level have ramped up quickly. According to CRP, in 2013 Uber spent just $50,000 on lobbying; by 2016 it boosted its lobbying investment 2,600 percent, spending over $1.3 million to try to influence Congress and other federal agencies. Major tech companies that were once fledglings themselves also expanded their lobbying efforts significantly. For example, Google started lobbying in 2003 with a mere $80,000; in 2016, it spent $15.4 million, making it the behemoth in the industry. Amazon spent $11.4 million last year, and Microsoft, $8.7 million.

Airbnb has had a less precipitous ramp-up in lobbying, but has still seen a steady increase over the last few years. In 2012, Airbnb spent $195,000 on federal lobbying efforts, in 2016 that number had climbed to just under $500,000. But Airbnb isn’t trailing some of the largest hotel chains in the U.S. by much. For example, Marriott International, by many accounts the largest hotel company in the world, spent $670,000 on federal lobbying in 2016.

These numbers only provide a snapshot into the lobbying activity of these companies. For a full look at the numbers, check out CRP’s info on Uber and Airbnb. But here’s the important takeaway: Uber and Airbnb, despite being relatively young companies, are making significant moves to influence members of Congress, as well as federal agencies.

Join the Pool: Uber’s Lobbying Efforts 

So where did that money go? As a relative newcomer to the lobbying arena in Washington D.C., Uber hasn’t made any huge moves yet, but has rather mainly focused on smaller scale, attainable goals. While Uber has long sparred with taxi groups, as well as dealt with regulations that have forced it out of some cities and states, those kinds of skirmishes have largely happened at the state and local level. Nationally, Uber has had other priorities, including initiatives to clarify and modernize transportation regulations. For example, one lobbying accomplishment for Uber was getting language into the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the rideshare service to pick up and drop off passengers at military bases.

But Uber has also begun to spend some money on its future endeavors. Uber is already starting to lobby, for instance, on behalf of self-driving cars, which are largely viewed as the next level of innovation for the company. Uber joined a coalition, the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, that includes its competitor Lyft, as well as Ford, Volvo, and Google. Headed by David Strickland, a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the group aims to influence the Department of Transportation as it solidifies some guidelines for self-driving cars. To that end, it spent $30,000 on federal-level lobbying in 2016.

Knocking on Doors: Airbnb’s Lobbying Efforts

What about Airbnb’s lobbying efforts–where do those end up concentrated? Like Uber, Airbnb has largely focused on building a presence and relationships with lawmakers–not any big moves. Early in 2016, Airbnb hired former Republican Congressman Vin Weber, of Minnesota, to up its federal advocacy presence. Weber explained to The Hill: “The good news is, they are smart enough to get involved in this town before they really need anything. They’re trying to introduce themselves before there’s any problem to be dealt with on the federal level.” But Airbnb has been cagey, in its lobbying reports, about revealing its interests in Washington: it often fills in the space for “Specific lobbying issues” with vague phrases like “programs and policies affecting the sharing economy” or “regulatory issues.”

Some of Airbnb’s energy has been concentrated on fighting the hotel industry. For example, the American Hotel and Lodging Association has been lobbying for more intense regulations for short term rentals like Airbnb; Airbnb has pushed back, publicly claiming the organization is anti-union and against minimum wage increases.

Conclusion

Uber and Airbnb have become such ubiquitous parts of our lives, despite the fact that they only sprung up a few years ago. But their moves in Washington, while recent, have been growing and are important to track. Because Uber, Airbnb, and other mainstays of the sharing economy like Lyft, Rover, and TaskRabbit, serve to disrupt their markets and provide existing services in new ways, they are particularly concerned about the effects certain federal regulations could have on their companies.

These companies have also started to increasingly make their political engagement known, especially in the wake of Trump’s presidential win. Right after Trump’s controversial executive order regarding travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, both Uber and Lyft fell into the political conversation. Uber came under fire after continuing to offer rides to JFK Airport despite a traffic strike, and #DeleteUber began trending as a result. In response, Lyft pledged to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. While federal lobbying matters, Uber, Lyft, and other sharing economy companies have shown that they’re willing to up their political engagement in other ways too.

Clearly there are many reasons that both companies have begun spending more heavily on federal lobbying. As Uber and Airbnb become more visible on the lobbying circuit, it’s worth watching how they spend their influence investments.

Resources

Primary

OpenSecrets: Sharing is Caring: Uber, Airbnb, Lyft Invest in Washington

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies

OpenSecrets: Uber Technologies: Issues

OpenSecrets: Airbnb Inc

Additional

Business Insider: Uber says it has over 80% of the ride-hailing market in the U.S.

The Hill: Uber tripled its lobbying efforts in 2016

Computer World: Uber, Amazon, and Tesla Ramped Up Their U.S. Lobbying in 2016

Fortune: Major Self-Driving Car Lobbyist Talks Safety, Risk, and Tesla Autopilot

Verge: Google, Ford, and Uber just created a giant lobbying group for self-driving cars

Law Street Media: Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous?

The Hill: Airbnb bolsters its DC lobbying force

Washington Post: Airbnb bulks up lobbying presence as lawmakers increase scrutiny of ‘sharing economy’

The Hill: Airbnb hits hotel lobby in message to Capitol Hill

Center for Responsive Politics

Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Our vision is for Americans, empowered by access to clear and unbiased information about money’s role in politics and policy, to use that knowledge to strengthen our democracy. Our mission is to produce and disseminate peerless data and analysis on money in politics to inform and engage Americans, champion transparency, and expose disproportionate or undue influence on public policy. The Center for Responsive Politics is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Follow the Money: The Sharing Economy Meets Washington appeared first on Law Street.

One of Donald Trump’s first moves as president was announcing his plan for the imminent repeal of 75 percent of federal regulations. In a previous article, we went over the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the ways in which federal environmental regulations affected business growth, outsourcing, and public health costs. Reviews of environmental regulations show that they have saved trillions of dollars in public heath costs while having a modest effect on American business, which has continued to grow and thrive since the creation of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Removing environmental regulations will likely not be the deciding factor that enables manufacturing to return to America but it could seriously endanger our water and air, especially for poor and at-risk communities.

But the question of what effect regulations have on the energy market itself has been a hot topic of debate lately. Conservative interests have argued for some time that environmental regulations place serious handicaps on fossil fuels and unfairly favor renewables, and the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan has come under a storm of criticism for strengthening this dynamic. Read on to learn about federal energy policy and environmental regulations to see how they have historically impacted different energy industries and examine what the Clean Power Plan would have done in contrast to what Trump’s proposed policies will likely do.

Regulations and the Energy Market: Renewables vs. Fossil Fuels

A central objection to environmental regulations is that they unfairly skew the energy market. They place countless handicaps on fossil fuel companies and allow renewables full freedom to prosper, unfairly impacting business throughout the country. It is very true that the energy market is subject to unfair business handicaps, but those that are in place overwhelmingly favor fossil fuel companies rather than hinder their success. Much of this dates back to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which determined subsidies for different energy sources. The law allocated $5.6 billion in incentives for the gas, oil, and coal industries, $4.5 billion for renewable and alternative energy sources and $3 billion in electricity incentives that largely addressed nuclear power (another $1.3 billion went to energy efficiency and conservation research and development, which mostly applied to fossil fuel production). This $4.5 billion may seem substantial and it did, in fact, bring forth the creation of critical incentives, such as solar tax credits. However, a review of the 2007 budget shows that more than two-thirds of all these renewable subsidies went to ethanol and biofuels. Only a little over a billion dollars went directly into America’s three dominant clean energy sources: solar, wind, and hydropower.

While direct funding and incentives are slanted toward fossil fuels, the real imbalance comes in the form of large-scale post-tax subsidies for fossil fuels that involve the costs of the externalities they create in the form of environmental damage and public health effects. Globally, the subsidy imbalance is extremely dramatic: worldwide about $120 billion in pre-tax subsidies goes to renewables and $523 billion goes to fossil fuels. But when you add post-tax subsidies, the IMF calculates that the fossil fuel industry received a staggering $4.2 trillion in subsidies in 2011. The United States is the world’s top producer of gas and petroleum and it’s a stretch of the imagination to claim that those industries are getting marginalized or cut an unfair deal.

The first part of this series explained the regulations that were placed on power plants for emissions and dumping, which represented a relatively small industry cost (especially compared to the massive public health savings generated by those regulations) and did nothing to stop the growth of the fossil fuel industry. For the most part, renewable energy systems don’t deal with regulations that affect emissions and toxic dumping because they don’t create waste streams through energy production. However, this doesn’t mean that renewables are given a free ride to prosper in the energy market; they are subject to extensive regulatory processes as well despite the fact that they do not have the same adverse impact on public health. The installation of a wind turbine, for instance, requires permits from a vast number of different regulatory authorities, and if even one of the required organizations doesn’t grant a permit then a project can be killed.

A great deal of attention has been called to the potential damage renewables can inflict on wildlife (the most common narrative is that wind turbines kill birds), despite the fact that fossil fuels do much greater damage to wildlife, and protected species regulations are often used to oppose renewable projects. Renewable energy systems can and have been repeatedly shut down mid-project for causing even minor habitat damage. The $2.2 billion BrightSource Solar Farm in the Mojave Desert, the largest solar facility ever to be built in the United States, was almost completely abandoned because of the death of a single endangered desert tortoise.

Fossil fuel companies must deal with some land and water regulations as well, but they also have access to a variety of unique legislative loopholes that allow them to dodge critical regulations and benefit from the tax code–in effect, giving them permission to pollute so that their business may thrive. The most dramatic example of this is the “Halliburton loophole,” which gives hydraulic fracturing companies special permission to inject hazardous chemicals underground, in what would normally be a direct violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. These benefits extend to the basic permitting processes that different energy companies must go through as well: fossil fuel companies generally have a streamlined permitting process, are given the cheapest land leasing rates, and must provide no strategy or evaluation of environmental safety.

In California, for instance, a solar farm project can require a three-year permitting process that requires millions of dollars. Comparatively, a fossil fuel company needs only a one-page declaration of intent and can begin construction almost immediately. Furthermore, the Bureau of Land Management values the land it leases to oil and gas companies at a rate set almost a century ago, meaning these companies pay incredibly low prices when utilizing federal land (costing $30 billion in federal revenue over the last 30 years for undervalued land) while the BLM requires renewables to pay modern land leasing rates. The idea that the fossil fuel industry is unfairly suppressed by regulation is a myth; the fossil fuel industry already has access to numerous regulatory loopholes and subsidy benefits. The environmental regulations that are in place aren’t suffocating growth, they’re providing critical protection for our public health against industries with high pollution potential.

Regulations and the Energy Market: The Coal Industry

The fossil fuel source that does face serious decline is coal, which the Clean Power Plan specifically targeted as the most dangerous energy source in use, both for climate change and for public health. One of Trump’s favorite mantras during his campaign was that regulations have destroyed the coal industry and taken away countless jobs from Americans in the process. Historically, no such pattern has been observable; the coal industry prospered under environmental regulations for decades and has suffered so much in recent years largely because of competition with the massive spike in domestic natural gas production and usage. This makes President Trump’s claim that he will boost both coal and gas production–which are two directly competing industries–particularly confusing. Critics of environmental regulations generally point to the implementation of the Mining Safety and Health Administration’s 2014 Respirable Coal Mine Dust Rule, which decreased acceptable concentrations of coal dust per cubic meter from 2 grams to 1.5 grams and required regular air samplings to be taken. This legislation has been a hot topic among the anti-regulation community and coal advocates have complained that maintaining such low levels are unfairly difficult at existing output levels.

Image courtesy of Greg Goebel; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0).

However, it’s worth noting that the rule was put in place in 2014, long after American business made the decision to favor natural gas and long after the initial downturn of the coal industry. It’s also true that the rule addresses very legitimate health concerns and when evaluating the efficacy of a regulation it is important to compare the health benefits to the cost savings that would disappear if the rule were rescinded. A staggering 76,000 miners have died from black lung over the last 50 years. Over the same time frame, the government has had to pay out $45 billion in federal compensation to affected workers and their families. The law is also directly targeted at mining crews with Part 90 miners–workers who have already been diagnosed with a respiratory illness. The rule sought to protect the most at-risk population of workers and if the coal industry is to have a productive workforce then it has a responsibility to ensure the health and survival of that workforce. Estimated annualized compliance costs were about $28.1 million at a 7 percent discount rate, with the majority of compliance costs coming from tech purchases for the newly required Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. This number may seem huge but it only represents about 0.13 percent of the coal industry’s annual earnings of $20.2 billion and less than a third of the $1 billion our nation pays out each year in federal compensation to sick and dying miners.

As an energy source, natural gas simply provides more energy for a lower cost, making it unlikely that coal will experience a serious resurgence in the United States. The coal industry survived and grew under the Clean Air Act, and the industry was on its way out long before the Respirable Coal Mine Dust Rule came into effect. While it’s highly likely that the Clean Power Plan would deal a deathblow to the industry, increasing funds to gas as Trump plans will accomplish the same thing only just at a slower rate.

Repealing pollution regulations like safeguards and filter requirements and removing coal mine dust restrictions wouldn’t make the changes necessary to revive the weakening business, not as long as gas is abundant and comparatively cheap. Removing these regulations would, however, make the coal production and disposal process more dangerous for the environment and miners would be the first group to experience the health consequences.

Obama vs. Trump

The Clean Power Plan issued new carbon emissions reductions standards for each state and would have required the states to independently create a plan to meet their target goals. The result would have been a huge increase in clean, renewable energy production. Coal would have been hit the hardest by this as the worst polluter, although the natural gas industry would more easily be able to improve efficiency rates and meet the new standards. The CPP actually encourages the increased use of gas, as long as it’s primarily a replacement for coal.

The nature of this policy aligns with public opinion as well. About 65 percent of the population favors stricter emissions regulations, about 70 to 75 percent of Americans want to see increased renewable energy, and only about 30 percent want to see more coal. However, the coal industry represents 174,000 jobs, including extraction, transportation, and production and it is unfair to cut off employment without generating new opportunities, even if those lost jobs had high health risks.

However, the Clean Power Plan has a strong focus on creating jobs in renewable energy and pollution control industries. The traditional conservative narrative claims that fossil fuels create employment and clean energy policies stifle it, but the reality is actually the reverse; renewables can be a vital catalyst for job growth and actually create more jobs than fossil fuels. One powerful example of the over-inflated projections of fossil fuel employment opportunities is happening right now, with President Trump advancing the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline, in particular, has come under a media firestorm after it was revealed that the project would only create 35 permanent jobs. Like most construction projects, the vast majority of jobs related to the pipeline will be temporary positions, including some that will only last for a few months or “spillover jobs” that take place in another industry.

The entire clean energy sector employed 8.1 million workers as of 2015 and growth in the sector has also moved at a rate 12 times faster than overall job growth. In 2014 there were 7.7 million clean energy jobs worldwide and by the end of 2015, that number had grown to about 8.1 million. The related job creation is also remarkable when compared to fossil fuels–a million dollars of spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency will create 13 jobs. That same million dollars only creates 6 jobs within the fossil fuel industry. These are good jobs for middle-class Americans as well, paying on average 13 percent higher than median wages. Many of the jobs that are created by renewable energy involve manufacturing, which would align with President Trump’s vow to revitalize the American manufacturing industry. However, unlike fossil fuels, positions in the renewable energy industry don’t endanger the health of the workers who support them. Hillary Clinton’s ambitious Clean Power Challenge would have expanded upon Obama’s CPP and would have increased renewables through competitive grants, tax incentives, and market-based incentives and created a flux of new jobs in the process. Such efforts would have also meant opening up the industry of offshore wind, a massive and untapped source of domestic energy and employment.

“Keystone XL Pipeline Protest at White House” courtesy of Tar Sand Action; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Critics of the Clean Power Plan claimed that it unfairly supported renewables and made it impossible for fossil fuels to thrive. It’s more accurate to say that it would have leveled the playing field, not skewed it in favor of renewables. Fossil fuels would still be disproportionately subsidized and would still play a huge role in American energy. What the CPP would have done is act as a major catalyst for an increase in clean energy use that America needs to combat climate change, establish energy independence, protect our public health and national lands, while creating new jobs for Americans.

Conclusion

It’s a political myth that the fossil fuel industry is unfairly regulated in the United States. America produces more gas and petroleum than any country on earth, subsidizes the fossil fuel industry with billions more than goes to renewables, and gives oil and gas companies fast-track access to land at the cheapest possible rates. The Clean Power Plan was a chance to increase clean, domestic renewable energy across the nation. Without the plan, the state renewable energy goals will be rendered non-binding and the progress of renewables will move at a much slower rate. Over the next four years, America will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels as the Trump Administration works to open up federal lands for drilling and fracking and peel back regulations allowing the oil and gas industry to freely pollute.

Will a Donald Trump presidency destroy the renewable energy industry? No, because the president doesn’t truly have control over the free market. Trump can seriously slow down renewable progress, but even if the Clean Power Plan is reversed, 29 states still have Renewable Target Portfolios established and another eight have created non-binding goals for themselves. The renewable energy industry has grown dramatically and will continue to receive bipartisan support in the places where it is cost efficient and useful. Red states such as Idaho, the Dakotas, and Texas have all made serious commitments to renewables because they have high renewable energy potential and investing in solar and wind simply makes economic sense. Technological improvements, especially within the field of energy storage, are increasingly raising the value of renewable energy systems and boosting growth within the private sector. In terms of coal, it will be difficult, and maybe even impossible, to bring the coal industry back to its previous rates of production as long as natural gas thrives in the United States.

However, climate change worsens every year and we don’t really have the luxury of waiting for things to move slowly. With Trump in power not only will much of Obama’s work be undone, we will also lose out on one of our last chances as a nation to try and combat climate change.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Impact of Environmental Regulations on the Energy Market appeared first on Law Street.

For many Americans, “I stand with Standing Rock” signs and chants have become all too familiar. Over the past year, the Dakota Access Pipeline has remained an extremely controversial project, putting water rights and tribal lands front and center in oversaturated news cycles. Former President Obama had halted construction of the pipeline until more environmental impacts could be considered, but the new Trump Administration has once again given the contentious project the green light. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe has vowed to shut down the project by any means necessary, indicating an uphill battle ahead for both sides of the project.

Dakota Access Pipeline Project

Priced at $3.7 billion, the Dakota Access Pipeline is a 1,172-mile-long underground oil pipeline project designed to transport Bakken shale oil. The pipeline is poised to transport 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day across four states, from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa and into Illinois. According to those in favor of the project, it is supposed to be a more cost-effective method of transporting oil than doing so by truck or train; almost 70 percent of Bakken oil is transported by train. Proponents also contend that the pipeline will help the U.S. gain energy independence.

The pipeline is extremely controversial due to its potential impact on the environment. Numerous tribes have expressed opposition to the project including the Meskwaki, Standing Rock Sioux, and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes. Initially, the pipeline route was intended to cross the Missouri River just north of Bismarck, North Dakota. It was later rerouted closer to tribal lands, a decision criticized by many as environmental racism.

According to the chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, the pipeline was rerouted closer to tribal lands when other North Dakota residents objected to the proximity of an oil pipeline to their communities and water sources. The portion of the Missouri River, where the pipeline will cross when completed, is the Standing Rock tribe’s primary source of drinking water. To date, most of the pipeline has already been built, but the section nearest to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe is still unfinished.

Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and Treaty of Fort Laramie

Opponents have argued that the pipeline would be in direct violation of the Sioux’s national sovereignty, as delegated in the signings of two treaties–the 1851 Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie.

In 1851, the U.S. government and the Sioux in Minnesota signed the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, which ceded large portions of territory to the federal government. In exchange for annuities in the form of cash and goods, the Sioux agreed under the treaty to move to land along the Minnesota River. White settlers were interested in obtaining control of the land for agriculture and also wanted the Sioux to convert from their nomadic lifestyle to European-American settled farming. However, violations of the treaty in the form of inadequate payments from the U.S., food shortages, and subsequent famines lead to a breaking point in the form of the Dakota War of 1862.

Another influential agreement was the Treaty of Fort Laramie, known as the Sioux Treaty of 1868, between the U.S. and multiple bands of the Lakota people. Signed on April 29, 1868, it guaranteed Lakota ownership of the Black Hills and hunting rights in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. While the land that the Dakota Access pipeline would cross is technically just north of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, the tribe argues that the land was taken illegally from them via the Sioux Treaty of 1868.

The affected tribes in Standing Rock contend that these treaties are legally-binding and have been ratified by the U.S. Senate; therefore, the oil companies and federal government have failed to recognize and respect the Sioux’s sovereign rights.

Easements and Eminent Domain

While there are many people who support the project, citing job creation as a positive byproduct of pipeline completion, others disapprove of  how the project was implemented. Many Native American landowners have had their land taken away from them against their will to clear a route for the pipeline using eminent domain. Eminent domain is the governmental power to take private property for public use and is the most common way to grant legal right of way easement. An easement is an encumbrance on private property; while landowners still retain ownership of their property, they lose the ability to freely use the portion of the property with the easement on it. U.S. law requires that landowners receive just compensation for the use of their land.

“Standing Rock 4” Courtesy of unitedchurchofchrist : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Other Controversies

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe has vehemently opposed the project, arguing that it violates the Treaty of Traverses des Sioux and the Treaty of Fort Laramie, as noted previously. The tribe and a number of its supporters contend that the project will contaminate drinking water, as well as damage sacred burial sites, dubbing the pipeline the “Black Snake.”  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over a small portion of the pipeline, suspended the project last year, after months of intense protests and controversies.

At the protest’s peak, roughly 10,000 people had joined the campsites and more than 200 Native American tribes pledged their support. In 2016, it was the largest congregation of indigenous people in the U.S. in decades, maybe even centuries. U.S. military veterans, several high-profile actors, politicians, artists, filmmakers, and other activists all lent their support.

“Standing Rock 5” Courtesy of unitedchurchofchrist : License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The protests surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline have not always been peaceful. According to reports, protesters have supposedly started fires, attempted to block roads, and have thrown petrol bombs at police. Police have also been accused of instigating violence and utilizing excessive force. Protesters have been attacked with pepper spray, freezing water, sound cannons, bean bag rounds, and rubber bullets. Police have also arrested hundreds of protestors on charges of criminal trespassing, rioting, and other felonies. At one point, the United Nations spoke out regarding the use of excessive force at the protest site.

Future of the Pipeline Project

In February 2017, the Trump Administration granted the final easement for that remaining section of the project. The Obama Administration, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, had put the project on hold pending an environmental impact statement. Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed an executive memorandum on January 24, 2017, mandating that the pipeline project proceed. If all goes according to plan, that last 1.5 mile stretch of the pipeline will be completed in less than 90 days.

This hasn’t deterred activists and water protectors from fighting against its completion. Several marches in major cities, including a large-scale “Native Nations” march in Washington D.C., are currently in the works. Seattle’s city council also voted to divest more than $3 billion from Wells Fargo, citing the bank’s role as a major lender to the Dakota Access Pipeline as one of its reasons. The city of Davis, California soon followed suit, committing to withdraw its $124 million from the bank by the end of 2017. Wells Fargo has maintained that it is legally obligated to its contract with the pipeline.

Moreover, a legal challenge against the pipeline between the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes and the federal government has been ongoing since 2016. The lawsuit contends that the Dakota Access Pipeline is an unlawful encroachment on the tribe’s heritage; it argues that the pipeline “might damage or destroy sites of great cultural and historical significance.” The National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, and Rivers and Harbors Act are the key laws at the crux of Standing Rock’s argument.

The tribe has stated on its website that if all legal actions and protest marches fail, resulting in construction of the pipeline, it will seek to “shut the pipeline operations down.” How that will exactly occur is still uncertain. One thing is abundantly clear: the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its many allies have no intention of standing down against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Conclusion

Despite clear opposition and legitimate concerns regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline, the project is scheduled to move forward and be completed in a few months. The project will certainly bring more jobs to the area and transport oil; however, it is absolutely imperative that these water sources and sacred tribal lands are not tarnished by the project. Moreover, it is critically important that protests over its construction remain peaceful, leaving violence and human rights violations behind.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Black Snake”: Unpacking the Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has long promised to remove as many environmental regulations as possible in order to allow American businesses room to grow and prosper and now seems ready to follow through on his pledge. Conservatives and libertarians have spoken out in widespread support of reducing regulations and its ability to stimulate growth. However, many of the regulations that Republicans believe hamper business productivity are in fact key provisions in the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that form the legal cornerstone for American public health.

More broadly, this narrative that environmental regulations (or really any sort of environmental policy) are damaging to business in American is a timeless conservative stance. But is it really true? Have environmental regulations really dampened the ability of business to succeed in America? Can regulations really be blamed for more and more industries outsourcing to countries that have less stringent rules? Could Trump’s infrastructure plan fix our water contamination in areas like Flint? What is the real, quantified benefit of regulations on American public health and why is it never discussed in these conversations? This is one of the oldest arguments against environmental policy measures and it deserves to be analyzed in depth. Read on to learn about the history and impact of environmental regulations on business, public health, and America as a whole.

The Birth of the EPA and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts

The advent of environmental regulations in America really begins with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Prior to the 70s, environmental rules were up to each state to determine independently; regulations were generally loose and chemical dumping was a common, widespread industrial practice. It should come as no surprise that America also had significantly worse water and air quality than it does currently. Only about a third of U.S. fresh water was safe to drink from and watersheds across the nation contained dangerous quantities of unsafe pathogens and hazardous chemicals. With the creation of the EPA came the passage of two critical laws, the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Clean Air Act of 1972.

Using the Clean Water Act, the EPA permanently barred individuals from dumping their waste in navigable waterways and established a dumping permit system for industrial and municipal facilities. These permits could be revoked if any company exceeded the wastewater standards set by the agency, and the removal of a permit resulted in an operational shutdown. The Clean Air Act of 1972 gave the EPA the power to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six major pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide. The impact of these acts has been huge. Beyond their immediate environmental benefits, these laws set a legacy of top-down, federal environmental regulation ensuring that America has some of the cleanest water and safest air in the world.

“Smog” courtesy of Isengardt; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Costs and Benefits on the National Scale

The technological changes required by these laws have been significant. Power plants throughout the nation were required to update their systems and install filters on their smokestacks. The transportation sector has perhaps experienced the greatest changes out of all the affected industries as the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) required massive modifications to engine efficiency and emission filtration systems. Congress created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975, which required certain fuel efficiency rates for different fleets of vehicles. The combined effects of the NAAQS and CAFE standards have dramatically increased the fuel efficiency of our transportation sector and subsequently reduced petroleum use and its pollutant emissions.

And did we gain anything? Actually, yes. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and its subsequent amendments, the percentage of drinkable fresh water in the United States rose from about 30 percent to well over 60 percent. The six major air pollutants in our atmosphere dropped by over 69 percent between 1972 and 2014. One of the reasons analyzing regulatory costs and benefits is complicated is because the losses are felt by private businesses, but the gains are felt in a completely different area: public health. In 2010 alone, Clean Air Act regulations led to the avoidance of an estimated 160,000 premature deaths from respiratory-related illnesses, 130,000 heart attacks, and millions of cases of acute bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. By 2020 the effects of the act are projected to prevent over 230,000 premature adult deaths annually.

These benefits don’t just lengthen lives, they also increase productivity throughout a lifetime. In 2010, over 13 million lost workdays and 3.2 million lost school days were avoided. All this has a direct benefit to the productivity of our workforce and the academic success of our students, which eventually aids American businesses by creating educated workers. Furthermore, employers provide health insurance for 59 percent of U.S. citizens, meaning that businesses will often end up directly shouldering the burden of increased health care costs when their workers get sick. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended to create a regular review of its costs and savings, the conclusion of which was that the benefits of these programs exceeded their compliance costs by a factor of over 43 to 1, based on the average of the estimated range of savings. In the 20 years since the annual review was first conducted, estimates suggest that the Clean Air Act has generated a staggering $22.2 trillion in savings for the United States compared to only $0.5 trillion in compliance costs for the businesses forced to adapt to new regulations.

But did it stifle the overall growth of American business? No, not really. Between 1970 and 2011, U.S. GDP increased by 212 percent and private sector jobs increased by 88 percent. Even the fossil fuel sector, the industry that stood to lose the most from new regulations, grew dramatically. Oil refineries experienced a sharp uptake in refinery productivity and coal production has increased by 70 percent since 1970.

What About Outsourcing?

It is sometimes incorrectly claimed that environmental regulations are one of the central causes for the significant trend in outsourcing that has swept through American businesses. President Trump certainly seems confident that removing regulations will help to bring back manufacturing to the U.S. But pollution abatement spending by American manufacturing is under 1 percent of the value of their total shipped goods. The primary driver in outsourcing is and has always been a desire to reduce labor costs. It would require much more than just dropping environmental regulations to actually induce companies to return to America (it would also most likely require slashing the minimum wage and dropping most workers’ rights) and the impacts of allowing large industries to pollute freely in this country would be significant.

One only needs to look at the difference in a citizen’s life expectancy and the staggering public health costs in industrialized nations without regulations compared to countries like our own. The World Bank has an exhaustive report on the available data. To do away with regulations will cause a dramatic drop in human health in the United States and would lead to an explosion in public health costs.

It is also overlooked that environmental regulations do encourage growth, as new regulatory mechanisms have consistently led to an increased demand for private tech providers, which are needed to create newly required technology. The American environmental technology sector is actually huge, generating around $300 billion in annual revenues, consisting of 119,000 companies, and providing more than 2.6 million jobs to American citizens. Air pollution control equipment alone generated $18 billion in revenue in 2008. Currently, the United States has the largest Environmental Technology industry in the world, making up about a third of the global market.

Pollution control industries create jobs for engineers, scientists, project managers, construction workers, etc., meaning there are employment opportunities for people of all educational levels. The growth of the pollution control sector also benefits some of the industries it was ironically, and incorrectly, predicted to disrupt–such as steel and plastics manufacturing–which are required to provide the materials for newly developed technology.

Business v. Environmentalism: Flint, Michigan

Much of Trump’s campaign was focused on revitalizing the rust belt through manufacturing and Flint can act as a viable case study for how Trump will impact public health and manufacturing. Flint, Michigan attracted national attention when elevated lead levels were found in many citizens’ blood from drinking contaminated water. Governor Rick Snyder appointed an Emergency Manager to Flint, Darnell Earley, who took control of the city’s budget and switched water sources from the drinkable Lake Huron to the toxic Flint River. The citizens took their complaints to the state Health Department and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality but both agencies largely ignored their concerns. It took nearly a year before the EPA heard about the problems with Flint’s water and the agency has been strongly criticized for not mobilizing rapidly and effectively enough to address the situation after it knew about it. Flint is a very serious story of how poor communication and utilization of federal resources failed a community in a serious way. What it is not is a story that indicates the EPA should be defunded and environmental regulations should be pulled.

The willful flouting of environmental regulations and requirements was what created the crisis in Flint to begin with. While untreated lead pipes used to be the norm in the United States, numerous laws have been passed over the years to protect American communities from lead poisoning. The Safe Drinking Water Act, amended in 1986, prohibited new pipe installations from using lead and the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (originally devised under Ronald Raegan and put into action by George H.W. Bush) required all lead pipes in America to either be replaced or be used in tandem with additional water treatment. While replacing existing pipes by using less dangerous alternatives, such as PVC, was heavily encouraged, many municipalities, especially in poorer areas, chose to go the cheaper route and use corrosion inhibitors. The Flint City Water Treatment Plant ignored these federal regulations and made the decision not to use anti-corrosion chemicals for their water system during a time when chemical costs were spiking. Skipping corrosion control saved Flint $140 a day, which pales in comparison to the costs of addressing the damage. Automotive factories witnessing their approaching collapse due to foreign competition chose to ignore federal water protection rules. Years and years of dumping toxic waste made the water in the Flint River particularly corrosive. These sorts of things are exactly what the preventative measures the EPA has set in place are there to prevent, and generally, those measures have been successful. Only one-third of American water was safe to drink before the Clean Water Act whereas that number has doubled because industrial dumping has been cracked down upon.

Addressing Environmental Problems 

The most important service the EPA provides is preventative, in the form of regulations protecting people and the environment from pollution. However, a major part of the agency is also focused on pollution restoration through the superfund program. Defunding the EPA will both remove these preventative measures and take away the safety net in place to fix things when pollution does happen. The EPA superfund program was created in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter in order to restore polluted areas, although it has faced legitimate criticism for not accomplishing enough and not addressing many of the sites that have applied for superfund assistance. The superfund program works on a “polluter pays” principle that requires the industry responsible for the contamination to fund a large part of the project. In areas like the Rust Belt, where many of the industries responsible for pollution went bankrupt, there is often no one to hold accountable and restoration projects are severely underfunded. However, this is not to say that the program is worthless; since its conception, the EPA has restored over 1,100 sites from severe pollution to healthy and livable communities and created circumstances for businesses to grow and thrive within those areas.  Superfund is one of Americans most critical programs for protecting marginalized and endangered American communities and it needs not to be abandoned but to have improved efficiency, administration, and a more reliable funding system for when industries can’t be held accountable for pollution.

President Trump’s proposed solution would be to allocate $1 trillion toward American infrastructure at what he claims would be no cost to taxpayers–by giving $160 billion in tax credits to companies that get involved with new projects. However, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the advisers behind his plan, admit that the plan can’t actually be self-financing. The private sector will require tens of millions of collective tolls and fees for the infrastructure projects taken from the communities in which the work is done. This means that while wealthy investors stand to make a profit through the infrastructure credits, the poorest and most in-need communities like Flint likely won’t benefit because such projects would not yield the profits necessary for private investors. Infrastructure improvements also won’t replace the direct medical benefits that the EPA has been supplying to the community in the form of lead absorption food packages and chemical treatments to restore the waterways. Now that they have a majority in Congress, Republicans have already started to chip away at environmental regulations, blocking the stream protection rule that controlled coal mining and dumping near waterways. The party’s deregulatory efforts will likely continue over the coming years.

Conclusion

Trump and his team of fossil fuel friendly advisers can do plenty to change the balance of environmental regulation and public health over the next several years. Opening up protected land to drilling, mining, and fracking while also removing environmental regulations places our water and air in harm’s way. Undoing regulations will not, in any sense, be the deciding factor that brings back outsourced manufacturing jobs to the United States, not as long as we have basic labor rights and mandated benefits that prevent companies from putting their staff in sweatshops and paying them a dollar a day.

Undoing regulations will, however, damage the growth of the pollution control industry. Extensive deregulation could even cause a notable increase in health care costs and result in a dramatic increase in cases of respiratory illnesses and eventually increased rates of premature deaths. Allowing manufacturers to dump freely poses a huge danger to American citizens’ drinking water and replacing the superfund program with incentive based infrastructure programs will do little to address environmental concerns in poor areas.

Safe water and air are privileges unique to the developed world and benefits that we’ve had for so long that they may be easy to overlook. However, they are critical to the health of our population and undoing the regulations that enable us to drink clean water and breathe clean air would be a disaster for our nation’s public health.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Impact of Environmental Regulations on Business appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Do you read every article you can find about the Tidal lawsuits? Are you fascinated by the legal effort to recover art stolen by the Nazis during World War II? Do you have strong feelings about the legal side of “Deflategate?” Do you want a legal career that’s dynamic, fast-paced, and challenging? If you answered yes to any or all of those questions, a career in Entertainment, Arts, or Sports law may be something to consider.

These specialties incorporate a wide range of legal disciplines, including IP and Copyright law, Contract law, and Labor law. And without the behind-the-scenes work of the lawyers who specialize in these fields, our favorite music, TV shows, movies, sports, and art would be unrecognizable. So, how do you get started? The University of Miami School of Law, home to the unique Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law LL.M program, has the answer. Read on to learn more.

A Primer on Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law

First things first: what are we talking about here? These fields, while distinct, are certainly related. But it’s still important to understand some of the nuances.

What is Entertainment Law? 

There’s no set-in-stone definition of exactly what Entertainment law constitutes, but in many ways it involves the application of legal concepts to real world problems. Entertainment lawyers deal with a myriad of legal issues arising from the entertainment and performing arts industry, including TV, movies, radio, theater, and publishing. It can include anything from working on contracts for performers or employers, to filing trademarks, confronting First Amendment issues, and dealing with lawsuits involving those in the entertainment industry. According to Miami Law:

Although entertainment lawyers might represent ‘talent,’ such as directors, actors or musicians, they more often advise companies that produce and distribute entertainment content, license celebrity brands, purchase and sell motion picture or music publishing catalogues, raise or invest debt and equity capital, and purchase and sell companies engaged in one or more of such activities.

Entertainment law is fast-paced and multi-dimensional, and can incorporate many legal questions that a lot of us probably don’t even think about on a daily basis. For example, imagine some of the legal issues that go into creating a movie:

• Actors, writers, and workers on the movie will need contracts to be negotiated. The presence of unions–for example the Screen Actors Guild–may also mean that labor law considerations are in the mix.
• Music used in the movie will need to be properly licensed.
• Marketing materials for the movie, including catchphrases, may need to be trademarked.
• Say the movie involves a “real life story” or biography–an attorney may be needed to deal with any defamation lawsuits that arise.

This list is by no means dispositive, but it goes to show that there are a lot of moving parts that go into what we see as final products in entertainment–and many of them require lawyers.

What is Arts Law?

Like Entertainment law, Arts law exists at a large intersection of legal issues, largely focused on the creation, ownership, and business of art. Intellectual Property law plays a large part–as art depends on the creation of unique work–but Estate and Property law, Contract law, Torts, and other areas factor in as well.

According to Miami Law:

Today, art lawyers work in law firms, museums, auction houses, and financial institutions. Works of art are bought and sold, implicating issues of good title and authenticity; loaned from museums to galleries and other museums, implicating insurance and contract matters; travel internationally for both commercial and private purposes, implicating international treaties and customs laws and regulations; and are often important assets in decedents’ estates, implicating tax and estate planning concerns. An art lawyer must be able to navigate this complex terrain of legal concepts and practical strategies.

Let’s look at an example, like we did with Entertainment law. What might you need to consider if you’re providing legal counsel to an artist?

• Contract law comes into play if the artist wants to be represented in any galleries.
• The artist may be able to receive royalties if their art is used for commercial purposes, or if someone uses the artist’s art without their permission, intellectual property rights could protect them.
• Artists sometimes become involved in performance art as public protests–First Amendment considerations may be at issue.

If any of those hypothetical issues piqued your interest, maybe Arts law is a discipline that you would want to consider.

What is Sports Law?

Sports law, like its Entertainment and Arts law counterparts, also sees a mix of legal principles and factors. Sports lawyers can represent players in the sports industry, including professional and amateur athletes, venues, organizations and teams, and companies that work with athletes or teams.

According to Miami Law:

Sports lawyers usually require knowledge of various areas of law including: contracts, labor, antitrust, tax, intellectual property and media law. To represent sports industry clients, a lawyer also needs strong contract negotiation and drafting skills in addition to an understanding of the arbitration process. Other areas of law, like immigration, can also come into play for foreign athletes and international leagues or clubs.

Let’s try our “day in the life” exercise with Sports law. Let’s say that you represent a team. Here are some questions that could come up:

• You’ll be needed to draft contracts for the athletes who join the team.
• In the cases of international athletes, you may need to deal with Immigration law to ensure that they are able to work in the United States.
• If an athlete gets injured in the course of a game, he may sue the organization he’s playing for.
• A team’s logo and mascot can be trademarked, and you may need to deal with infringing uses on unlicensed merchandise.

Needless to say, there’s no guarantee that any given sports lawyer will deal with those exact issues. But it’s important to note that Sports law, just like Entertainment law and Arts law, requires lawyers who enjoy working in an unpredictable and quickly evolving field.

You’ve Convinced Me–I want to be an Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Lawyer. Where do I start?

Miami Law’s LL.M in Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law can help you make that dream a reality. The program is designed for working lawyers who want to narrow their focus on one of these specialties or students who have already received their law degrees abroad. An LL.M can provide the leg up you need in a competitive environment. The clients you’ll represent–whether it’s an actor, artist, athlete, venue, or company–need to know that you have the wide breadth of legal knowledge to help confront whatever problem they run into. A focused LL.M could make it clear that you have that expertise.

Why Miami Law?

Miami Law’s LL.M program offers some unparalleled perks to get you on the right track.

Location, Location, Location 

Miami is a vibrant, bustling city that serves as an epicenter for entertainment, art, and sports. Miami is home to a number of entertainment production companies, including Telemundo, Univision, HBO Latin America, Viacom International, Sony, and BBC Latin America. The art scene in Miami features many galleries and museums; the city has traditionally been known for its art deco flair. And don’t forget–Miami is home to the Miami Heat, the Miami Dolphins, and the Miami Marlins, in addition to countless amateur and college teams.

Connections are Key 

Who are some Miami alums in the fields of Entertainment, Arts, or Sports law? Take, for example, Horacio Gutierrez, class of ’98. He now serves as General Counsel for Spotify, one of the fastest-growing music streaming services in the world. In the field of Sports law, Dennis Curran is a Miami Law alum, class of ’75. He currently serves as the Senior Vice-President and General Counsel for the NFL Management Council, which represents the 32 teams in the NFL. And Professor Stephen K. Urice, the Director of the Arts law track, comes from a background in arts and museum law–at one point he directed the national culture program at The Pew Charitable Trusts. Miami Law’s faculty, staff, and alumni can help you bridge the gap between your education and getting involved in the job of your dreams.

Hands-On Experience

Miami Law provides its LL.M students with unparalleled hands-on experience. Each of the three tracks–Entertainment law, Art law, and Sports law–requires a practicum component that will give them experience in the field. For example, Maria Jose Rivera, a student in the LL.M program, is completing her practicum requirement at the NBC Universal Telemundo. She describes her work as a fall legal intern to the Telemundo Network with Music Affairs, saying:

I want to get to counsel and represent television and motion picture productions in all legal aspects. Whenever I walk into a studio set, I get thrills by seeing it and hearing in all in real life. I see the drafting of agreements as creating the safeguards to making those audiovisual productions come strong from a legal standpoint.

And she described her experience with the LL.M program as a whole, saying:

The program has helped me get there by not only placing me into the real practice but by granting me the privilege to work with and learn from these role models I look up to professionally. I’m drafting and negotiating agreements for the first time while being challenged to develop the skills that are in demand when becoming an effective lawyer in the entertainment industries.

So, are you ready to make a change, and work on something you’re truly passionate about? Consider Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Law. It’s a growing and exciting field, and it’s time for you to take the plunge.

Resources

Primary

Miami Law: LL.M. in Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law

Miami Law: Entertainment Track

Miami Law: Art Track

Miami Law: Sports Track 

Additional

LexisNexis: Researching Entertainment Law

ABA: What Is Sports Law and Who Is a Sports Lawyer?

Lawyers for the Creative Arts: Legal Issues in Film Production

University of Miami School of Law

The University of Miami School of Law’s mission is to foster the intellectual discipline, creativity, and critical skills that will prepare its graduates for the highest standards of professional competence in the practice of law in a global environment subject to continual–and not always predictable–transformation; to cultivate a broad range of legal and interdisciplinary scholarship that, working at the cutting edge of its field, enhances the development of law and legal doctrine, and deepens society’s understanding of law and its role in society; and to fulfill the legal profession’s historic duty to promote the interests of justice. Visit www.law.miami.edu for more information. The University of Miami School of Law is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post What Does it Take to Become an Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Lawyer? appeared first on Law Street.

Public lands dot significant portions of America’s landscape from coast to coast. Managed by a variety of agencies, these lands and waters are home to diverse ecosystems and prime settings for recreational activities. With an immense amount of annual foot traffic and billions of dollars of revenue generated, public lands play a substantial role in American lives.

For decades, there have been debates over whether or not these lands should be turned over to the states or private organizations. Now changes could become a reality, as Capitol Hill is filled with lawmakers who support transferring millions of acres of public lands away from the federal government. But the consequences of such a transfer may have more negative impacts than positive, and many citizens feel that access to public land is an American birthright.

Background of Federal Lands and Agencies

The majority of public lands in the U.S. are held in trust by the federal government and managed by a variety of agencies. According to a 2014 report, the federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, which is about 28 percent of all the land in the United States. Four agencies own over 600 million acres of that land: the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The lands are utilized primarily for recreation, preservation, and natural resource development.

U.S. Forest Service

President Benjamin Harrison established the National Forest system with 13 million acres and 15 forest reserves through the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which gave the president power to set aside and reserve public lands. Conserving land for the people was a national priority, as was obtaining acknowledgement that forested areas needed special protection from the exploitation of natural resources. With 155 forests and 20 grasslands currently totaling over 191 million acres, these lands overseen by the United States Forest Service reach diverse populations and are extremely popular destinations for a variety of outdoor and recreational activities. According to a National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report, there were over 180 million visits made to National Forest sites in 2015.

“US Federal Land Agencies” Courtesy of National Atlas of the United States: License Public Domain

The Bureau of Land Management

The BLM is responsible for managing 247.3 million acres of public land–one-eighth of all the landmasses in the country. From grazing permits to mining and coal leases, the agency administers 205,498 miles of fishable streams, 2.2 million acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 4,500 miles of National Scenic, Historic, and Recreation Trails in addition to multiple-use trails for recreation purposes. The BLM collects a significant amount of revenue from public lands. In 2016, the agency made $2 billion in royalty revenue from federal leases; the Outdoor Industry Association also estimates that $40 billion in federal tax revenue comes from the recreation industry on public lands.

The Western Concentration

Other agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers participate in federal land management and administration. Most of the federal land ownership is concentrated in the western part of the country, contributing to greater controversy over ownership and use of federal lands in the area.

Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine is a long-standing principle that the government holds some lands in trust for public use, regardless of any private property ownership. Generally, this applies to land, water, and natural resources, such as beaches and navigable rivers. While the doctrine itself varies heavily from state to state, the public may fully enjoy any public trust lands, waters, and natural resources for a “wide variety of recognized public uses.” These rights became established in the U.S. after Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, an 1892 case that held that the government cannot alienate a public right to lands under navigable waters.

“Fall Color at Natural Arch – Daniel Boone National Forest” Courtesy of US Forest Service -Southeast : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Additionally, the public trust doctrine puts a limit on private rights. A landowner may not alter their property in such a way that it would interfere with use of public land. Moreover, the doctrine specifically protects the land from misuse by the state. A state may not convey public trust lands if the conveyance could substantially impair public use of lands or waters. Thus, any move to privatize public lands may be in direct violation of the public trust doctrine, particularly if the sale would then impair the public’s use of such land or water.

Plans to Privatize Public Lands

The collective ownership of these lands, however, could possibly change if lawmakers continue down their current course. House Bill 3650, introduced to the House of Representatives in September 2015, directs the Department of Agriculture to “convey to a state up to 2 million acres of eligible portions of the National Forest System.” These portions of conveyed land will be administered and managed “primarily for timber production.” On June 15, 2016, the Natural Resources Committee voted to adopt H.R. 3650; it is currently awaiting the next stage in the lawmaking process.

Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a piece of legislation at the end of January 2017 that was later dubbed the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. In a press release for H.R. 621, Chaffetz claimed that 3.3 million acres of land maintained by the BLM “served no purpose for taxpayers.” If the bill passed, ten states were poised to lose federal land. However, he withdrew the legislation in February 2017 after facing harsh criticism from his constituents.

“Gunnison National Forest Colorado” Courtesy of David : License (CC BY 2.0)

Despite the withdrawal of H.R. 621, Republican lawmakers still laid out a plan to give away roughly 640 million acres of land in early 2017. Lawmakers overwrote the value of federal lands by changing a single line of rules for the House of Representatives, making it easy to dispose of federal property–even if it ends up losing money for the government and there’s no compensation for American citizens. In essence, the change states that transferring public land to “state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays.” The land would be given to the states, and then could possibly be sold to private owners.

As a result, places like the Grand Canyon National Park and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which are rich in uranium and copper respectively, may be up for grabs first. The oil-rich lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could also be vulnerable for sale. According to Alan Rowsome, the senior director of government relations for The Wilderness Society, it seems very likely that Alaska’s national lands will be open for drilling under a Republican-controlled House. Many western states are already taking the necessary actions to prepare for public land transfers.

Criticism of Privatization

First things first: critics fear that local governments with small budgets will not be able to manage the land once it is transferred to them by the federal government. In the summer of 2016, the Forest Service spent $240 million a week to fight forest fires, and the Department of Interior has estimated that the cost of deferred maintenance is around $11 billion. Over time, whenever federal land has been given to states, it has become less accessible. Between 2000 and 2009, Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of public land; in Colorado, citizens may only use 20 percent of state trust land for hunting and fishing.

Private ownership of public tracts of land has profound consequences, as it will probably affect land managed and regulated by conservation programs or private entities, likely reducing public access. Public access to National Forests contributes greatly to state economies; a report completed by the Outdoor Industry Association found that the outdoor industry directly impacts over six million jobs and contributes to $646 billion in outdoor recreation spending. The Outdoor Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of groups that support outdoor activities, has argued that any action to transfer lands to private hands is a “public land heist.”

A 2016 Harvard Kennedy School study, found that 95 percent of the American public believes in the importance of protecting national parks and 80 percent would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to do so. Such an overwhelming response certainly indicates that protecting public places is incredibly important to Americans.

Conclusion

While there is still time before these resolutions become law, plans to privatize our forests have been set in motion on numerous occasions. If Americans’ access is restricted and these lands are exploited for a profit, the primary purpose of establishing public lands for citizen use will disappear. In the famous words of President Teddy Roosevelt, champion of conservation and public lands, “I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few . . . Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Land is Your Land: Should Public Lands Be Privatized? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, December 29, President Barack Obama placed sanctions on Russia for its alleged hacking of several American institutions. While the sanctions themselves are not unprecedented–the U.S. had sanctioned Russia two years earlier–they point to another unfortunate episode in an increasingly contentious relationship between the two nations. This relationship has eroded as these former adversaries have clashed over Crimea, the nation of Georgia, Syria, and U.S. presidential elections, all within the past decade. While some recent developments suggest the relationship may start to improve, much of the future remains uncertain. Read on to see how the U.S.-Russia relationship has developed over the years, where exactly it stands now, and what it will look like in the future.

The United States and the Empire of Russia

The relationship between the United States and Russia, then the Russian Empire, dates back to before the U.S. government was even firmly established. During the American Revolutionary War, Russia ultimately decided to remain neutral and not offer any support to the British despite being a British ally at the time. The next time the two nations went to war, in the War of 1812, Russia was once again involved as it offered to serve as a mediator. While the offer was declined by the British, a relationship between Russia and the United States was forming.

Although the relationship had initially been positive, a degree of tension arose between the two nations when the Holy Alliance–Russia, Austria, and Prussia–threatened to intercede in Central and Latin America, a perceived violation of the U.S. sphere of influence established by the Monroe Doctrine. The issue was ultimately resolved and no serious conflict resulted. Russia would get back in America’s good graces when it nominally supported the United States during the Civil War, including sending ships to the American East and West Coasts. While historians contend this move was actually to avoid having those ships blocked or destroyed by British and French troops during the Crimean War, and although Russia never provided physical support, the presence of the Russian sailors was positive.

Perhaps the most significant interaction between the two, prior to World War II, was the purchase of Alaska, completed in 1867. Russia was keen to sell the land because it was too far away to administer and also because it needed money following the Crimean War. The United States initiated the purchase in 1859 but held off on actually buying the land until 1867 following the Civil War. The sale price was $7.2 million and was initially viewed as a mistake until large mineral deposits were discovered.

The United States and Russia continued their relationship into the 20th century during several important events. The first was the United States getting Russia and several European empires to agree to an Open Door Policy in China, which ensured its territorial integrity. The second was the United States, under Theodore Roosevelt, mediating the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

Even when the relationship was strained, the U.S. offered substantial aid to Russia following the outbreak of World War I and later during a massive famine in 1921-1923. However, the United States, along with other Allied governments, also sent troops in to undermine the new communist regime following their takeover and subsequent withdrawal from World War I. When the USSR was declared in 1922, all diplomatic ties were severed.

World War II and the Cold War

The United States did eventually reestablish diplomatic ties with the USSR in 1933. During World War II, the two countries would become allies, with the USSR receiving supplies from the U.S. as part of the Lend-Lease program and later when both countries fought the Axis Powers. These two nations, along with France, China, and the U.K. would also become the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council following the war.

That was the high point, however, and for the next 45 years or so, the relationship was increasingly tense during the Cold War. This was particularly true with the “Iron Curtain” descending on Eastern Europe in 1947 and America introducing its policy of containment. The two sides then squared off in a stalemate, which was occasionally punctuated by major events like the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Both countries also engaged in a heated space race with the USSR launching the first satellite in 1957 and United States becoming the first and only country to land a man on the moon in 1969.

Tensions normalized somewhat in the 1970s with the first talks on reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles and for cooperation in space. However, they flared once more in the 1980s with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The decade closed, though, with resumed talks on disarmament. The 1990s began with a bang, or more specifically a coup in 1991. The coup failed and so did the USSR soon after, breaking into 15 countries later that year. The video below looks at the history of the Cold War:

After the Thaw

The fall of the Soviet Union was greeted hopefully by the United States with the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, aimed at collecting nuclear material, infamously named “loose nukes,” from the former Soviet Republics. The two also collaborated again on the space program, culminating with the International Space Station.

Relations began to cool again after both George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin came to power, particularly when President Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. This was followed by Russian opposition to the Iraq war, U.S. support for Kosovo gaining independence, and an American anti-missile defense system proposed for Poland. Relations between the two countries declined precipitously following the 2008 invasion of South Ossetia and the subsequent war between Russia and Georgia.

Following this episode, the then-incoming Obama Administration called for a policy “reset” in 2009. Things certainly seemed promising with the New START agreement that called for nuclear arms reduction between the United States and Russia in 2010, along with Russia agreeing to new sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. From there, however, the situation took a turn for the worse again, when Russia supported Bashar al-Assad in Syria, alleged Russian spies were detained in the United States, and Russia cracked down on human rights in 2012 following Vladimir Putin’s election as president. Russia also expelled USAID from the country and made all NGOs register.

Although both countries came to some agreements to strengthen sanctions on North Korea following its nuclear weapons test in 2013, relations continued to deteriorate when Russia granted asylum to Edward Snowden later that year. This intensified significantly with Russia’s seizure and subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, as well as its support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine. These actions led the U.S. to place economic sanctions on Russia and expel it from the G8.

Most recently, the United States and Russia have continued to bicker over the Syrian conflict and Russian support for the Assad regime. However, the greatest spat appears to have come in the wake of the recent election when several U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had interfered in the presidential election through targeted hacking and leaking. This news caused President Obama to increase sanctions and expel 35 Russian nationals from the country. The CIA updated its assessment to conclude that not only did Russia interfere in the election, it did so to help elect Donald Trump.

Going Forward

While Russia and the U.S. have shared a tense relationship for more than a decade, the two countries see signs of hope with the election of Donald Trump. President Trump has seemed to confirm this with what he has already said concerning Russia. For evidence, one need look only as far as President Obama’s recent sanctions against Russia and President Trump’s subsequent praise of Vladimir Putin’s intelligence for not responding in kind. The following video looks at the potential relationship with Donald Trump as president:

President Trump indicated that he hopes to warm relations between the two countries not just with his words but also with his recent actions–namely, by nominating Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. Tillerson was formerly the CEO of Exxon Mobile and has a lot of business experience working with the Russian government. In fact, Tillerson was once awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin himself. While all of Tillerson’s experience with the country comes from his work in the private sector–acting on behalf of Exxon Mobil rather than the American government–early indications suggest that Russia is pleased with his selection.

Nevertheless, the U.S.-Russia relationship is dictated by more than just the president and his cabinet and that is where things start to get complicated. While Trump sang Putin’s praises for exercising restraint, Republican members of Congress were happy to see additional sanctions placed on Russia, which many considered overdue. In some cases, such as with Senator John McCain, the sanctions were not enough and he pledged to work for even tougher measures. Thus the jury remains out on the future of the relationship; however, the opportunity for improvement appears to be there.

Conclusion

The relationship between Russia and the United States has ebbed and flowed. At first, like many other countries in Europe, Russia treated the United States as a trading partner but not much else. However, with the dawn of the twentieth century and the ascension of the United States as one of the preeminent powers in the world, Russia began to take notice. This situation came to a head following World War II when they were the only two superpowers left standing, prompting competition for ideological control of the world.

However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, early indications seemed to suggest the United States and Russia could finally work together and form a more collaborative relationship. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case, as the early 21st century featured more disagreement and mutual antagonism. With the rise of Vladimir Putin and his sustained grip on power, the situation has only deteriorated further. While newly elected President Trump has suggested a closer partnership, it remains to be seen if that will stand the test of his term or if Congressional Republicans will even allow it. In the meantime, the United States and Russia will continue their long, circling dance, interacting when necessary and quarreling regularly.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Story Behind the U.S.-Russia Relationship appeared first on Law Street.

The estate tax, more commonly known as the “death tax,” is one of the most hated taxes in the United States. Long considered to be a contentious issue in the tax policy field, Americans are largely not comfortable with the concept of taxing inheritances. However, estate taxes align perfectly with America’s historical idea of fairness and not encouraging wealth to accumulate long after death. Despite citizens’ contempt for taxes at death, few will ever actually be subject to the estate tax. Read on to learn more about the estate tax, and what happens to our money after we die.

Evolution and History of the Estate Tax

The Internal Revenue Service defines the estate tax as “a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.” Taxation at death can be traced back as far as ancient Egypt, around 700 B.C. In feudal Europe, it was also quite common to impose taxes on the death of a family member, normally amounting to a family’s annual property rent.

Early American government abolished laws that encouraged the accumulation of wealth over many generations. In 1777, Thomas Jefferson cited Adam Smith, a free market capitalist, when stating that “the earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity.” The concept that people should control their estates after death was considered “manifestly absurd” by both Jefferson and Smith.

The modern estate tax evolved through the Stamp Tax of 1797 (taxes levied on required federal stamps on wills, inventories, and letters of administration), the Revenue Act of 1862 (the addition of a legacy or inheritance tax along with the stamp tax on the probate of wills or letters of administration), and the War Revenue Act of 1898 (a federal legacy tax proposed to raise revenue for the Spanish-American War, levied only on personal property).

The Estate Tax 1900 to Present

The Revenue Act of 1916 specifically created a tax on the transfer of wealth to beneficiaries. This levied a tax directly on the estate itself, rather than an inheritance tax. Over the next few decades, laws surrounding the estate and gift tax framework shifted immensely. A gift tax was repealed in 1926, then reintroduced in 1932; tax bases expanded; life insurance rules were modified to exclude insurance the decedent never owned; and marital deductions frequently changed. Significant tax law changes came around with the Tax Reform Act of 1976. This created a unified estate and gift tax framework; prior to this reform, it was far cheaper to give property away during life as gifts, as there was a higher tax rate applied at death. The generation-skipping transfer trust tax was also added to combat creative trust frameworks that paid money out to intervening beneficiaries, avoiding taxes altogether.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 allowed for a phasing-out of the estate tax, along with a lowering of annual top-rate estate taxes. It also lowered capital-gains taxes, in addition to lowering income taxes. Much of the resistance to the estate tax has come from powerful public relations campaigns and lobbying efforts. Many wealthy families have lobbied for years around an estate tax repeal and funded actions to make it a reality: including the Mars Chocolate family, the L.L. Bean family, and the Campbell’s Soup family.

The “Death Tax”

While citizens feel very strongly about the “death tax,” it only affects a small percentage of families each year. According to a 2016 Gallup poll, 54 percent of those polled supported a repeal of the estate tax. Under the current law, however, the 40 percent tax rate is applied only to estates worth more than $5.45 million for individuals and more than $10.9 million for married couples. If a decedent has an estate worth less than that, then it is automatically passed on to heirs completely tax-free. Additionally, individuals are able to give away $14,000 a year as a gift to an unlimited amount of people without incurring any tax.

So, an overwhelming majority of families in the U.S. are not subject to the estate tax. For example, in 2015, only 4,918 estates were subject to the tax, yielding $17 billion (less than 1 percent of federal revenue). From that number, 266 estates valued at $50 million or more brought in $7.4 billion in revenue. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), 99.8 percent of estates are exempt from the estate tax. The CBPP also notes that $275 billion will be generated from 2017-2026 under the current estate tax law. While that is still less than 1 percent of federal revenue during that same period, it is more than the government will spend on the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Environmental Protection Agency combined. Estate taxes clearly remain an integral source of revenue for the federal government.

Moreover, the interesting thing about many estates is that most will not ever actually be taxed. The CBPP estimates that 55 percent of the value of the estates worth more than $100 million are comprised of unrealized capital gains; those gains have not yet been taxed nor will they ever be taxed under current estate tax laws. Capital gains are only taxed when an owner of an asset “realizes” a gain; therefore, if an asset is held by an owner until death, increasing in value over the years, it will never actually be subject to income tax.

Generally, taxable estates pay less than one-sixth of their value in tax–roughly 16.6 percent, far below the top statutory rate. Additionally, the significant number of loopholes and generous deductions enable many estates to avoid taxes altogether. Hence, many families are able to pass on numerous assets to future generations tax-free due to advantageous laws.

Estate Tax Repeal

Republicans have long sought to repeal the death tax, and now thanks to President Trump, that dream may be realized. Abolishing it completely would save millionaires and billionaires in the U.S. roughly $20 billion a year in taxes. An action to repeal the estate tax would be beneficial only for the top 1 percent of families in the country, something that appears to be completely at odds with the working-class voters who helped to elect Trump. Under the current administration, passage of a bill to repeal the estate tax in the Republican-led House is practically certain; as for the Senate, a decade-long repeal is possible under a reconciliation which needs 50 senators. To repeal the estate tax permanently, 60 votes would be needed, which may be more difficult to garner.

“Donald Trump” Courtesy of Gage Skidmore : License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Opponents of the estate tax have contended that it hurts family farms and small businesses immensely. In reality, very few small businesses and farms owe any estate tax in a given year. In 2013, only roughly 20 small businesses and small farm estates were subject to the estate tax, and estimates show that those estates only owed about 4.9 percent of their value in taxes.

If repealed, President Trump’s estate alone would save about $564 million, based on his estimated net worth of $3 billion (although he has argued that his net worth is even higher). Trump’s team, which is comprised primarily of extremely wealthy individuals, would also benefit greatly from an estate tax repeal. However, a proposed plan to repeal the estate tax indicates a bit of compromise as well. Instead of capital gains being able to pass to heirs tax-free, those assets would be subject to a capital gains tax at death, with an exemption of the first $10 million in assets for family farms and small business owners. A tax on capital gains would only top out at 20 percent, while the estate tax is at 40 percent. Thus, repealing the estate tax and replacing it with a capital gains tax would be extremely beneficial for wealthy families. 

Conclusion

The estate tax is misunderstood by most Americans; despite all of the negative sentiments surrounding it, only a minuscule number of estates will be affected by it annually. In actuality, a repeal of the estate tax would only benefit a small number of incredibly wealthy families in the U.S., while simultaneously depriving the federal government of billions of dollars of revenue each year. When weighing the merits of the estate tax system, one should consider the benefits of allocating society’s resources and promoting equality over the potential consequences of binding the majority of assets and wealth into a small percentage of the American population.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Death and Taxes: What is the Estate Tax? appeared first on Law Street.

While President Barack Obama’s time in office has now come to a close, his environmental legacy has the potential to last far beyond his eight years as president. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to protect and defend the environment, championing several initiatives. Some key accomplishments, however, include the establishment of more national monuments than any other president, signing the historic Paris Climate Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, banning drilling in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean, and unveiling the Clean Power Plan. Additionally, Obama raised fuel-efficiency standards, invested in green energy, and created the Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. Whether these policies stand the test of time, however, may depend heavily on the actions of future administrations.

National Monuments

While Obama’s time in office was winding down, he was still designating sites as national monuments. On January 12, 2017, Obama named five new national monuments. That brought his total number during his presidency to 34—more than any other president. Moreover, in December 2016, he created two national monument sites in Utah and Nevada. The Bears Ears National Monument, which protects 1.35 million acres of land in southwest Utah and two geological formations, was particularly controversial; five Native nations had petitioned Obama to grant federal monument protections to the area.

“Bears Ears” Courtesy of Bureau of Land Management : License: (CC BY 2.0)

Over the course of his time in office, Obama utilized the Antiquities Act–a law signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906–multiple times to create the monuments. The Act gives the President of the United States the authority to set aside land to protect important historic, cultural, and ecological sites without approval from Congress. In total, Obama protected more than 550 million acres. That is more than double the amount that Roosevelt, a well-known conservationist, conserved himself.

A large portion of the land Obama protected is covered by water. He created and expanded several large national marine monuments. One notable monument is the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument, a large collection of coral reefs, underwater preserves, and tiny islands roughly 1,000 miles off the coast of Hawaii. Bush had originally established the monument in 2009 at 55.6 million acres; Obama then expanded it by 261.3 million acres in 2014. Obama also quadrupled the size of Hawaii’s Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which is home to more than 7,000 species of wildlife, many of which are endangered.

Ban on Arctic and Atlantic Drilling

In addition to the significant acreage of water Obama protected as national monuments, his administration also banned arctic drilling. Using the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Obama withdrew hundreds of millions of acres of federally-owned land in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean from new offshore and gas drilling in December 2016. The Act allowed for Obama to act unilaterally, but no president has ever utilized the law to permanently protect land. In particular, large portions of the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic and canyons in the Atlantic from Massachusetts to Virginia are now off-limits to oil exploration.

“Sea Ice in the Chukchi Sea” Courtesy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center : License: (CC BY 2.0)

The Atlantic Ocean already had a five-year moratorium in place, and the protection of the canyons means that most of the eastern seaboard will not be drilled for oil. The seas in the Arctic are a habitat for several endangered species, including species that are candidates for an endangered species listing, and the canyons protected are largely recognized as biodiversity hotspots. If the ban is upheld by the courts, about 98 percent of the waters in the Arctic would be protected from oil exploration and drilling. In a presidential memorandum, Obama stated that these areas are extremely vulnerable to oil spills and have irreplaceable value for marine animals, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and scientific research–making the Arctic Waters a prime area for protection

Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement was the first of its kind–a global consensus to combat the effects of climate change. Its central aim is to strengthen the response to threats of climate change and keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The agreement also aims to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by limiting the burning of fossil fuels and assist in preventing further floods, droughts, catastrophic storms, and rising sea levels.

In a rare moment of consensus, both the U.S. and China ratified the agreement, formally committing the world’s two biggest economies to curb climate change. The terms allow countries to determine independently which strategies will be most successful in attaining climate goals. While some of the aspects are binding and some are not, Obama’s ratification of the deal demonstrated a bold move by his administration to make protecting the planet a priority in years to come.

Clean Power Plan

President Obama’s most historic environmental initiative, perhaps, is the Clean Power Plan, which is designed to aggressively shrink America’s carbon footprint. The plan outlined the first national standards to specifically address pollution from power plants. In particular, the plan cuts significant amounts of carbon pollution and other pollutants from power plants that are responsible for soot and smog that have an adverse effect on human health. The plan is long-term, allowing companies to remain in business while making the changes needed to comply with the new standards.

The Supreme Court issued a “stay” in February 2016,  temporarily halting the plan from moving forward. However, it is set to be fully in place by 2030, with carbon pollution 32 percent below 2005 levels, sulfur dioxide pollution 90 percent lower, and nitrogen oxides 72 percent lower. This reduction in greenhouse gases is specifically aimed at combating the dangerous effects of such pollution on the climate. Additionally, the entire plan itself is expected to contribute a variety of positive economic effects–climate benefits of roughly $20 billion, health benefits in the $14-$34 billion range, and total net benefits of approximately $26-$45 billion.

“Power plant” Courtesy of Spiros Vathis : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

What’s Next?

Despite the great measures Obama undertook to protect the environment, it is quite possible that some of his environmental policies will be overturned by a new administration. The ban on drilling may or may not be able to be overturned by President Trump, but a Republican-controlled Congress could move to rescind the withdrawal of federal lands from oil and gas exploration. However, such a move might not be successful, given a close reading of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

National monuments have never been removed by a subsequent president, but President Trump has reportedly stated that he is open to the idea of doing so. As for the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump has made it clear that he wants to withdraw America’s participation in the historic deal. Arguments that the agreement will be disastrous for the economy and American industry are at the forefront of opponents’ minds. While Trump considers withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement, China, India, Germany, the EU, and the UK have all reaffirmed their commitments to curb emissions. China’s President, Xi Jinping, even stated that removing the U.S. from the agreement will endanger future generations. Furthermore, if other countries continue to invest heavily in clean energy, then money, jobs, and technology are sure to stream into those industries, perhaps leaving the U.S. behind.

The fate of the Clean Power Plan also hangs in the balance under the new administration. Many opposed to the plan have already urged President Trump to sign an executive order that rescinds the rule and tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to enforce it. However, attorneys general from a variety of states have noted that “history and legal precedent strongly suggest that such an action would not stand up in court.” The plan is also vulnerable to the Congressional Review Act, which would allow Congress to nullify the regulations. For now, the Clean Power Plan remains in limbo.

Overall, most of Obama’s environmental legacy will be decided by the courts, not by a particular administration. With more than 100 judicial vacancies across the country as Trump takes office, along with a vacant Supreme Court seat, the courtroom is going to be the arena in which environmental policies could be dismantled. In particular circuits with more than one vacant seat, specific areas of environmental regulation may be rolled back immensely; for example, the Second Circuit has become a critical arena for determining water regulation under the Clean Water Act and the Ninth Circuit has a profound impact on endangered specifies. Environmental groups are already preparing to take any anti-climate policies or actions to court, along with attorneys general from multiple states.

Conclusion

Obama’s presidency was clearly focused on environmental protection and combating catastrophic effects of climate change in the coming years. As commander-in-chief, Obama did an extensive amount of work to ensure the environment is viable and sustainable far into the future. Whether his efforts will be unraveled in the new Trump Administration and Republican-controlled legislative branch, however, is yet to be seen. Overall, Obama’s actions certainly elevated the environment and climate change to a much higher level of importance, and his environmental legacy may have him remembered as one of the top environmental presidents in history.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Look Back at the Obama Administration’s Environmental Legacy appeared first on Law Street.

The United Nations recently passed a resolution regarding Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. The most significant takeaways from this development are that the United States allowed the U.N. resolution to be passed and the specific language included in the resolution. This is particularly true when coupled with the language used by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to criticize the United States and President Barack Obama after the resolution’s passage. Read on to find out what exactly the resolution means for Palestine, Israel, and the United States as well as the history of the conflict that led to the resolution in the first place.

The Resolution

So what does this resolution do and why has it made the leadership of Israel so upset? The U.N. resolution declares that Israeli settlements are a violation of international law and calls for an immediate end to all settlement activities. The actual determination in the resolution is nothing new, in fact, it has been the view of the international community for some time. What is new is that the Obama administration allowed it to pass without vetoing it as well as the emerging context surrounding the dispute–many are now starting to doubt whether the long sought after two-state solution is still a viable option.

After the resolution was passed, Palestinian leaders indicated that they would use the resolution to support their case against Israel in international courts, a move strongly opposed by Israel. While the condemning language and the reaction of Palestinian leaders are significant, they pale in comparison to accusations leveled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu against President Obama. Netanyahu has effectively accused Obama and his administration of plotting against Israel and even crafting the resolution in the first place, which the Obama Administration denies.

The resolution that did pass is not actually binding; while it may condemn Israel’s actions it cannot forcibly stop them. Additionally, President Donald Trump has already vowed to veto any resolution that would actually force Israel to cease and desist settlement activities. The video below looks at the U.N. resolution:

The History of the Conflict

The origins of the conflict between the two sides go back to the 19th century. Initially, the territory in question was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, during World War I, when it was clear that the Ottomans would lose, Britain and France created their own plan for the region following the war with something known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement effectively carved up Arab lands in the Middle East between France and the U.K., which went against earlier promises for an Arab state following the end of the war.

In 1917, the U.K. issued the Balfour Declaration, in which it announced its support of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. British responsibility for creating an Israeli homeland was reaffirmed by the Palestinian Mandate in 1921, which gave it control over former Ottoman lands along the terms agreed upon in Sykes-Picot. However, neither the mandate nor the earlier Balfour Declaration mentioned anything about creating a Palestinian homeland, despite the wishes of the Palestinian population.

This resentment, coupled with earlier broken promises to create an independent Arab state and the continuing and increasing Jewish migration, led to persistent conflict. In the 1930s Jewish militias helped the British put down the Arab uprising hoping to rekindle support for their independent state. Instead, they were betrayed again by yet another British agreement known as the White Paper of 1939, which would limit further Jewish migration, even as the Holocaust occurred in Europe.

After World War II the British ended its mandate in the area, transferring the land and the problems that went with it to the United Nations. The U.N. then attempted a two-state partition that instead led to more fighting and eventually the first Arab-Israeli War, which ended with an armistice in 1949. Per the terms of the agreement, Israel took control of 77 percent of the original mandate, Jordan received control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt acquired the Gaza Strip, Palestinians did not control any territory following the fighting. This also led to a mass exodus of Palestinians and a huge refugee problem that continues to this day. The biggest flare of violence between Israel and its neighbors after this, until 1967, was a joint British-French-Israeli effort to take back the Suez Canal after it had been nationalized in 1956.

While the root of the general conflict can clearly be traced back further, the root of the modern conflict can trace its most direct route to the 1967 war, known most commonly as the 6-Day War. After a series of Palestinian attacks from surrounding countries and Israeli retaliation, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq started mobilizing their militaries. However, Israel then took a surprise early offensive, decimating much of its adversaries’ air force and went on to capture a dominant victory. As a result of the victory, Israel won and occupied the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, all of Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. In the process of the war, hundreds of thousands more refugees were forced to leave their homes and more than a million Palestinians fell under the direct rule of Israel.

Another conflict emerged in 1973 when Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. The attack prompted the United States to step in and seek a diplomatic resolution. After several years, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty that included the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.

However, since 1967, there has been an almost unstoppable pace of settlement in occupied territories by Israeli settlers. As of 2013, there were over 200 settlements and outposts of Israeli settlers in lands occupied since the end of the 6-Day War, namely in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. These settlements, even the outposts that the Israeli government considers illegal, are encouraged and supported by the government through subsidies and tax breaks on housing, education, and opening new businesses.

Apart from incentives, Israeli settlers also enjoy many other advantages over their Palestinian neighbors in the occupied territories. One is a separate legal system that greatly benefits settlers over Palestinian natives who instead are governed by military law. Another is access to resources such as water, transportation, and electricity, which settlers get from the Israeli government. The settlements have led to perpetual conflict, despite numerous efforts at peace. The following video gives a good description of the roots of the conflict:

The United States, Israel, Palestine and the History of Peace Talks

Since the end of the 6-Day War, there have been several efforts aimed at achieving peace between Israel and Palestine and establishing some framework in which both peoples can have states of their own. This started with two other U.N. resolutions, namely 242 and 338, which put an end to the 1973 War and also called for Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied. Building off of the 1973 War were the Camp David Accords, which led to Israel withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt recognizing it as a state. But these talks did not involve the Palestinians.

The Madrid Conference in 1991 was aimed at similar goals, namely ensuring recognition of the state of Israel. Ultimately, it led to peace between Israel and Jordan, but none of the other combatants. While the Palestinians were represented at the Madrid Conference, the first deal to actually incorporate them was the Oslo Accords in 1993. In exchange for promising to incrementally withdraw Israeli troops from Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO, would acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Opposition groups in Palestine and settler groups in Israel opposed the deal, which led to violence. The agreement was never fully implemented.

Probably the closest the two sides ever came to lasting peace was the second Camp David Accords in 2000 when both sides offered land swaps, however, they were not quite enough to entice the other to agree to a peace resolution. A last ditch effort in Taba in 2001 and an Arab Initiative in 2002 both also failed. In 2003 President Bush submitted his road map to peace and became the first president to call for an independent Palestinian state. Unfortunately, another set of negotiations, the Geneva Accords of 2003, attempted to fix the same problem from another direction. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Two more rounds of talks in 2007 and 2010 seemed close to reaching deals at times but both ultimately fell short as well.

This history led President Barack Obama to seek some positive action before his term ended. Without having to worry about reelection, he allowed the recent resolution to pass. While his actions are not unprecedented, they are still controversial. Other resolutions have been passed regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations, but this was the most recent one to condemn settlements since 1980. Additionally, while Obama is not the first U.S. president to allow a resolution related to this conflict to pass without a veto, it is the first time in his presidency. The accompanying video looks at the peace process as it currently stands and the remaining inherent trouble:

Moving Forward

While the resolution is non-binding, it is not entirely toothless. What it does is create a template for future negotiations and potentially other resolutions that would be binding. While a January 15 International Peace Conference seemed to offer a forum to draft that kind of resolution, no such progress was made. Instead, the focus was mainly on reopening dialogue between the two parties and reiterating support for past ideas, such as a two-state solution and the return of land occupied by Israel to Palestine.

Aside from creating guidelines, the recent U.N. resolution also eliminated many of the legal arguments Israel could have used to justify settlements. The resolution may also lead to subsequent efforts to apply sanctions on Israeli goods made in the occupied territories or force Israel to go to the International Criminal Court.

President Trump has already denounced the resolution and promised to repeal it. However, that seems unlikely as he would have to introduce a new resolution and, like the current one, get it through the Security Council without a single veto, which is unlikely. However, Trump and the Israelis can cut funding to the United Nations, which would be significant, as the U.S. supplies 22 percent of the organization’s budget. Israel can also go after the nations who voted for the resolution, summoning ambassadors from countries that supported the resolution.The U.S. embassy, notably, was not among those targeted by Israel.

In the meantime, the settlements continue to be built and expand further into Palestinian occupied lands. There are now 600,000 Jewish Israelis living in either East Jerusalem or the West Bank where once there were none. In other words, nearly 10 percent of the country’s Jewish population lives beyond the borders established in 1967 and in territory recognized as Palestinian.

As a result, Palestinians view these settlements as an unjust seizing of the land that they would receive if a two-state solution ever came to fruition. The Israelis view these settlements as a necessary buffer and feel justified through scripture. They also contend that since Jordan, which once laid claim to these areas of land, is no longer interested in the lands, there is no sovereign power who has control over them. However, even Israel will not go so far as to claim the disputed lands in the West Bank as part of its own sovereign territory. Any solution to the problem will likely have to include land swaps, among other things, something that Israel has shown it is not totally against, such as when it abandoned a settlement in the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Conclusion

The issues in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are not going to be resolved by one U.N. resolution. However, that was never the point as the resolution was non-binding. The idea behind the resolution was to create some type of momentum for negotiations–or possibly block the momentum of efforts that many believe run against the interests of a peace settlement. In this circumstance, the onus was put on Israel, as the international community sought to make a strong statement on settlement building.

The likelihood of reaching an actual deal depends on more than just these two countries. While the rest of the Security Council, and the world in general, have an interest, the United States has played a key role in many past peace attempts. This U.N. resolution then could signal an important step forward if all sides involved are willing to look past politics and are serious about achieving some sort of two-state solution. However, it appears unlikely that the incoming president will take the same line on Israeli settlement building, which could cause many to question the negotiation process given that most view settlements as an important obstacle to a lasting resolution.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What a Recent U.N. Resolution Means for the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process appeared first on Law Street.