It is accepted wisdom at this point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is no fan of marijuana, including in its medicinal capacity. He is adamant that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” He recently compared medical marijuana, which has never led to an overdose death, to opioids, which kill nearly a hundred Americans each day.

Now, Sessions is pushing congressional leaders to allow the Justice Department to use its funds to prosecute medical marijuana-related crimes, even in states that have legalized medical marijuana. In a letter sent last month to top-ranking representatives and senators, obtained by MassRoots on Monday, Sessions shows his opposition to a budget provision that would prohibit the Justice Department from spending federal cash to crack down on states with legal medical marijuana laws. He wrote:

I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime. The Department must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives.

Sessions is referring to the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, a budget rider, introduced in 2014, that prevents the Justice Department from allocating funds to press cases against medical marijuana actors in states that have legalized cannabis for medicinal purposes. The amendment was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus spending bill, which passed early last month, states:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used […] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Though the spending bill, which will fund the government until October 1, included the amendment, it is unclear whether it will make the next one. In the letter, which was provided to MassRoots by a congressional staffer, Sessions argues that the amendment prevents the DOJ from cracking down on gangs that operate in states where medical marijuana is lawful.

“Drug traffickers already cultivate and distribute marijuana inside the United States under the guise of state medical marijuana laws,” he wrote. “In particular, Cuban, Asian, Caucasian, and Eurasian criminal organizations have established marijuana operations in state-approved marijuana markets.”

The Obama Administration was no fan of the amendment either. For one, the Justice Department lobbied Congress to strike down the provision in 2014, arguing that it might “limit or possibly eliminate the Department’s ability to enforce federal law in recreational marijuana cases as well.” And even after the amendment passed, the administration still managed to prosecute individuals and organizations in states where medical marijuana had been legalized.

Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA) responded by writing a letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying the administration’s interpretation of the amendment “clearly is a stretch.” They added:

The implementation of state law is carried out by individuals and businesses as the state authorizes them to do. For DOJ to argue otherwise is a tortuous twisting of the text of [the provision] and common sense and the use of federal funds to prevent these individuals and businesses from acting in accordance with state law is clearly in violation of Rohrabacher-Farr.

If the Sessions-led Justice Department takes a similar tactic as the previous administration, it will certainly be hearing from Rohrabacher and Farr.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sessions Asked Congress to Remove Marijuana Protections from Spending Bill 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.

A provision that directs the Justice Department to respect states’ medical marijuana laws is included in the new spending bill, which Congress is expected to pass this week. The provision, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, should soothe concerns that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will increase enforcement of the federal marijuana ban–at least regarding medical marijuana. The amendment does not explicitly protect recreational marijuana laws, which are in place in eight states and D.C.

Initially introduced in 2014–and included in every budget since then–by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA), the amendment bars the Justice Department from allocating funds to enforcing the federal ban on medical marijuana activities in states where use, distribution, and cultivation is legal in some capacity. Twenty-nine states and D.C. have legalized marijuana for medical use. More than a dozen others have legalized cannabidiol (CBD)–a non-psychoactive element of marijuana that has therapeutic effects–for limited use.

“None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used […] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana,” the amendment states.

After weeks of uncertainty about what the budget would include, Congress reached an agreement on how to fund the government last weekend. President Donald Trump’s promised border wall with Mexico will not receive government money, according to the agreement, which the House is scheduled to take up on Wednesday. Democrats were largely happy with the spending bill, which will fund the government through September.

The budget placates Democrats who were worried about deep cuts to the EPA’s budget, or funds allocated to hard-line immigration programs, like a deportation force. And the renewal of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment should, at least in regards to medical marijuana, alleviate concerns that the Trump Administration will initiate a war on marijuana.

Sessions has made comments–before he was attorney general and when he was an Alabama Senator–that have given pro-marijuana advocates, and a growing number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers, cause for concern. He once said, “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” He has equated the dangers of medical marijuana and heroin. And he recently affirmed that it is illegal to use or distribute marijuana, “whether a state legalizes it or not.” But the inclusion of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment should, at least in part, temper concerns that Sessions is gunning for a major enforcement campaign.

Rohrabacher, a member of the recently established Congressional Cannabis Caucus, wrote a letter in April to members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, asking them to renew his eponymous amendment. “We believe such a policy is not only consistent with the wishes of a bipartisan majority of the members of the House, but also with the wishes of the American people,” he wrote. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Provision in Spending Bill Protects States’ Medical Marijuana Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns from a two-week recess–the Senate returns on Monday, the House Tuesday–its legislative to-do list is stuffed to the brim. President Donald Trump is expected to propose a tax plan on Wednesday. He has suggested a revamped version of the Republican health care plan, which failed to hit the House floor for a vote last month, could be introduced this week. But foremost on Congress’ agenda: passing a government spending bill and staving off a government shutdown, a prospect that would be deeply embarrassing for an administration that will see its 100th day in office on Saturday.

Funding for the government, absent a spending agreement, is set to run out on Friday. To avoid a shutdown–which last occurred in 2013 when congressional Republicans and former President Barack Obama were deeply divided–the White House will have to come to an agreement with Congress. Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill differ with the administration in their spending priorities, especially when it comes to Trump’s long-promised border wall between the United States and Mexico.

Many GOP lawmakers, and most, if not all, Democrats oppose paying for the wall with funds from the government’s coffers. Trump is adamant on following through on a promise that he sees as central to his election victory, however. On Sunday morning, the president reiterated his promise that Mexico will pay for the wall but asked for funding in the meantime:

Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a security hawk who is generally seen as a hard-liner on immigration, recently said the wall will get funded “one way or another.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, said: “We expect money for border security in this bill.” Priebus added: “And it ought to be. Because the president won overwhelmingly. And everyone understands the border wall was part of it.”

Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, also insists the administration will push hard for the border wall to be included in a final budget agreement. “We want our priorities funded and one of the biggest priorities during the campaign was border security, keeping Americans safe and part of that was a border wall,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” Mulvaney did add, however, that Trump would sign a bill that did not include funding for the wall. “I don’t think anybody is trying to get to a shutdown. Shutdown is not a desired end. It’s not a tool. It’s not something that we want to have,” he said.

On Friday, the administration floated a proposal to bridge the divide with Democrats–whose support for a final budget deal is vital to keeping the government afloat–on the border wall issue. For each dollar spent on the wall, according to the administration’s offer, the government would spend a dollar on Obamacare subsidies. Through a spokesman, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said the trade-off idea was a “complete non-starter.”

Trump, who is still hoping to secure a legislative achievement by his 100-day mark, sent a tweet on Sunday morning that encapsulated his lack of leverage heading into the budget battle with Democrats:

ObamaCare is in serious trouble. The Dems need big money to keep it going – otherwise it dies far sooner than anyone would have thought.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Border Wall: the Issue That Could Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is preparing to submit a budget proposal for the coming fiscal year that would increase military spending by $54 billion, a 10 percent spike, according to an administration official. To offset the increase, a similar amount would need to be shaved from other programs and agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department.

“This budget follows through on my promise to focus on keeping Americans safe,” Trump said during a meeting with governors on Monday. The president said that the budget will include “a historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States.” He added that the budget will send a “message to the world, in these dangerous times, of American strength, security, and resolve.”

While a final budget will not be set for at least a few months, Trump’s wish list sets the tone for how he plans to spend the government’s money during his first year in office. It also seems to send the message that he is doing what he said he would: pare down a bloated government, while increasing military spending.

“We have to start winning wars again–when I was young, in high school and college, people used to say ‘we haven’t lost a war’–we never lost a war– you remember,” Trump said at the governors meeting. “We either got to win, or don’t fight it at all.”

The administration official, who talked to reporters on the condition of anonymity, said foreign aid would see massive reductions in funding. Foreign aid, which is often tied to security concerns that could ultimately affect the U.S., takes up one of the slimmest slices of the federal budget.

On Tuesday evening, Trump is expected to discuss his budget proposals to a televised joint session of Congress. In the months ahead, the initial budget request will get hemmed and altered by Republicans in Congress. Democrats are expected to staunchly oppose certain proposals, such as the proposed cuts to the EPA.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) said the additional $54 billion in military spending “almost certainly means cuts to agencies that protect consumers from Wall Street excess and protect clean air and water.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said the cuts will have “far-reaching and long-lasting damage to our ability to meet the needs of the American people and win the jobs of the future.”

But Trump sees his proposal as him cashing in on a campaign promise to increase the bang of America’s buck. “We are going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people,” he said during a White House address preceding his meeting with the governors. “We can do so much more with the money we spend.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Budget Blueprint Seeks Dramatic Military Spending Increase appeared first on Law Street.

As many Americans continue to move toward more conscious eating that places an emphasis on consuming responsible, organic foods, we’ve seen more labels in our supermarkets. The country-of-origin labeling rule (COOL), first authorized in 2002, mandated that our meat labels list the country where the product was produced. However that provision was repealed in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama late last week–which means that country-of-origin labels will no longer appear on meat, specifically beef and pork, sold in the United States.

But this move on Congress’s part isn’t about a departure from increased labeling–it’s about the possible international affairs and economic side effects of continuing the labeling. The COOL labeling has been controversial on the world stage from the beginning, because other countries feared it could cause American consumers to discriminate against their meat products for no reason other than that competitors’ products were produced in the United States. Last week, the World Trade Organization (WTO) authorized Canada and Mexico, two of the U.S.’s major trading partners, to tax American products to make up for the cost of the COOL regulations.

The concerns over those costs, as well as the fact that these taxes could be extended to other products, caused Congress to repeal the provision specifically on beef and pork, but labeling will remain on other products. Any meat that comes into the United States from another country will still be inspected by the USDA before it makes it into consumers hands. However, many Americans are unhappy with Congress’s choice to change the labeling requirements overall. Most notably, this comes in contrast to what Americans seemingly want. According to a 2013 study by the Consumer Federation of America:

Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born, raised and processed. Similarly, ninety percent (90 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born and raised and the fact that the meat was processed in the U.S.

Supporters of COOL have floated particular concerns about Brazilian beef, because the country has had an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease as recently as 2014. According to Willy Blackmore, of TakePart, “there could soon be between 20,000 and 65,000 metric tons of fresh or frozen Brazilian beef—about 1 percent of U.S. beef imports—coming into the country annually.”

So, the vote was kind of a lose-lose for Congress–either way it was going to make some people mad. But for now, we won’t be seeing country-of-origin labels on our beef or pork–we’ll have to see how long that change lasts.

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 Where’s Your Meat From? Congress Repeals Country-of-Origin Labeling appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns to Washington there are several important issues on the docket, from the Iran deal to Pope Francis’ speech, but there is one major debate that is sure to take center stage in the coming days: budget negotiations. It’s certainly not everyone’s favorite reminder of Fall, but it comes each year as sure as the change in seasons. This time around, the budget debate is shaping up to be a particularly ugly battle and may even lead to yet another government shutdown.

Creating a budget traditionally involves the passage of 12 different bills, which fund various parts of the government. But in recent years, Congress has had difficulty passing budget measures and has resorted to using continuing resolutions, which essentially maintain existing funding levels for a short period of time to extend negotiations. The last time Congress passed all 12 bills on time (before the fiscal year begins on October 1) was back in 1996.

When Congress does pass a budget, it typically takes the form of an omnibus bill that combines all of the various spending measures into one piece of legislation. However, such bills often include a lot of minor amendments that allow congressmen to sneak in controversial policies. These changes manage to get through because they are attached to such an important bill, which few people want to derail over one specific issue. A recent example of this was the so-called “Cromnibus” bill, a continuing resolution that was passed at the 11th hour (almost literally) before an impending shutdown last December. The bill included some contentious elements, like raising limits for donations to political parties and rolling back some of the regulations passed after the 2008 financial crisis.

This year, there are several major hurdles that Congress must get past in order to agree on a new budget, which makes a shutdown all the more likely. For those of you who remember the 2013 shutdown–which sought to push back the implementation of Obamacare and lasted for 16 days–a familiar face is back at the center of attention: Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Cruz is leading an emerging group of conservative Republicans who want to stop federal funding for Planned Parenthood–the non-profit healthcare organization that provides a range of reproductive health services including, controversially, abortions. Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually; however, due to a decades-old amendment, that funding cannot be used for abortions.

While Planned Parenthood is perennially a hot topic in American politics, it has become the subject of a lot of attention lately after a series of videos were released alleging that the organization sold organs and tissue from aborted fetuses to researchers. The videos were released by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress. So far, state investigations into Planned Parenthood have found no evidence of wrongdoing and a review of the videos indicate that they were edited before publishing.

There are currently 28 Republicans in the House and Senator Cruz in the Senate who have stated their commitment to either defunding Planned Parenthood or forcing a government shutdown. If the movement garners enough support, the group could refuse to vote on any spending measure that includes any funding for Planned Parenthood. Even if Congress manages to pass a budget that defunds the organization, it will still likely lead to a shutdown because President Obama has already vowed to veto any such bill. Cruz and his allies’ proposed alternative to Planned Parenthood funding calls for the money to be given to community health centers. While several Republicans favor defunding Planned Parenthood, few may be willing to shut down the government over the issue–putting many, particularly the party leaders, in a very difficult position. If the government does shut down it is likely that Congress will take the blame. After the 2013 shutdown, approval of Republicans in Congress reached an all-time low, and now that the party controls both the House and the Senate a shutdown could be even more embarrassing.

Based on the way the budget talks are developing, it’s clear that Planned Parenthood will be one of, if not the most, important issues as the deadline comes closer, but its funding won’t be the only controversial topic in budget talks. Due to the Budget Control Act passed in 2011, also known as the sequester, caps were placed on both domestic and military spending. President Obama has harshly criticized the caps for domestic spending and many Republicans want to provide additional military spending after the Pentagon’s budget faced dramatic cuts as sequestration began. Republicans are now trying to move funding from domestic programs as a way to increase military spending, but President Obama and Congressional Democrats will likely reject any compromise that does not include raising domestic spending. The President has promised to veto any bill that leaves sequestration-level budget caps in place.

Congress only has just over 10 legislative days to pass a new budget or a continuing resolution before the government shuts down at midnight on September 30. Some experts. like Stan Collender, have given precise estimates–Collender believes there is a 67 percent chance of a shutdown. Overall, the likelihood of either solution seems to be in doubt as the deadline looms closer, leaving budget analysts to argue that a shutdown is more likely than not.

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 Brace Yourselves: A Government Shutdown May Be Looming appeared first on Law Street.

Big time Illinois lottery winners are lucky–sort of. The recent winners are probably happy to have won big chunks of money, but they also just got news that they won’t receive it any time soon. As a result of the Illinois government’s inability to pass a budget, any winners of $25,000 or more won’t receive their payouts just yet.

It’s now two months into Illinois’s fiscal year without a budget, as the negotiations have reached a standstill. Governor Bruce Rauner is stuck into a fight with the Democrats who control the state legislature. The Democrats are looking to raise taxes, but Rauner is pushing for things like changes to workers’ compensation and collective bargaining.

Right now the two sides are at an impasse–so only essential things are being paid for, like payroll, schools, and child and foster care. The lottery does not fall under the category of essential items; moreover, payments over $25,000 need to be disbursed by the state comptroller. The spokesman for the Illinois Lottery Steve Rossi, explained:

The lottery is a state agency like many others, and we’re obviously affected by the budget situation. Since the legal authority is not there for the comptroller to disburse payments, those payments are delayed.

Lottery officials have explained that eventually the money will be paid out, but no one is exactly sure when. This has created some problems for winners who are waiting on that money, assuming they would have received it by now. This is an issue for winners of $25,000 or more, those who won between $25,000 and $600 can pick it up at various lottery offices throughout the state. Winners of $600 or less can pick their money wherever they bought the tickets.

State Representative Jack Franks, a Democrat, explained how this is indicative of some bigger issues with the lottery system. He stated:

Our government is committing a fraud on the taxpayers, because we’re holding ourselves out as selling a good, and we’re not — we’re not selling anything. The lottery is a contract: I pay my money, and if I win, you’re obligated to pay me and you have to pay me timely. It doesn’t say if you have money or when you have money.

While the lottery is obviously not an essential feature of what a state provides, the fact that a budget hold up reverberates through a state’s many different departments is clear. Not paying out prizes is probably a bad move in the long run–the lottery brings in plenty of revenue, and people won’t be encouraged to play if they aren’t guaranteed that they’ll receive the money. Lottery winners are certainly hoping that the budget snafu will be resolved 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 Why Can’t Illinois Pay its Lottery Winners? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States Postal Service has been in financial trouble for the better part of a decade. As a society, we rely on the postal service in our everyday lives. Although email and social media are today’s go-to communication methods, we still expect some things to show up at the door whether it be bills, college acceptance letters, or items ordered from Amazon. Many give an extra tip to the mailman or mailwoman during the holiday season in thanks to that integral service all year round. Perhaps we should no longer take that service for granted. The Postal Service is in hot water with an ongoing deficit. So what actions are being taken today to rectify the budget crisis and how could it affect the average American?

 The U.S. Postal Service

Here is a brief background on how the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) came to be the organization it is today. The government created the United States Post Office Department, headed by the Postmaster General, in 1872. It was elevated from its post as a cabinet department from 1872 to 1971. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, signed by President Richard Nixon, replaced the U.S. Post Office Department with the current USPS. The Act came as a response to the 1970 Postal Strike. On March 23, 1970, President Nixon called in the National Guard and armed forces to counteract the large wildcat strike. The strike called for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. For example, Congress had allocated a 41 percent raise for members of Congress, while Postal Department workers only received a 4 percent increase.

The 1970 Postal Reorganization Act redesigned the branch. The newly created USPS, as we know it today, became an independent body of the executive branch with a legal monopoly over mail service. The USPS was restructured to achieve financial independence through postage sales, mail products, and services. Taxpayer money is only used in providing mail services to the disabled and Americans overseas. Although the USPS is legally responsible for its own budget, it may borrow up to $3 billion a year from the U.S. Treasury and retain a debt ceiling of up to $15 billion. As an independent but federal organization, the USPS receives many perks including exemption from vehicle licensing requirements, sales tax, local property taxes, and even parking tickets. To ensure universal service and a six-day delivery service nationwide, the USPS is granted a monopoly over first class and standard mail delivery. Competition, such as UPS and FedEx, are not allowed access to mailboxes.

 What is Causing the Deficit?

USPS has accumulated $47 billion in operating losses since the 1971 reorganization. This is even more shocking when you learn that the USPS has generated more than $700 billion in revenue. From 2007-2010 alone, the “USPS lost $20 billion, and its debt increased from $2.1 billion to $12 billion.” It has only increased since then. The USPS lost $5 billion in the 2013 fiscal year and $5.5 billion in the 2014 fiscal year. The USPS reached its legal $15 billion deficit ceiling back in 2012.

The primary factor for this likely depends on who you ask because there are a few different pieces to this puzzle. One major reason: the USPS is legally bound by Congress to “prefund more than $5.5 billion annually for health benefits for future retirees,” since 2006. As of 2013, the USPS set aside about $44 billion for this specific allocation. Frankly, it’s something the USPS can’t afford. When the mandate was implemented in 2006, the USPS was financially strong. It was before the 2008 recession and explosion of other communication outlets. In 2012, it defaulted on this payment for this first time.

That brings us to our second reason for the default: lower volume. In 2006, the USPS delivered 97 billion pieces of first-class mail. In 2012, it delivered 68 billion pieces. The decline isn’t surprising with today’s innovative technologies that are only expanding. Everything seems to be going online from bills to keeping in touch. Other factors include competition from FedEx/UPS, ballooned operating costs, and the demands of the unionized workforce.

President’s Obama’s Proposed Solution

President Obama has a plan for the 2016 fiscal budget and the USPS that would potentially save $36 billion over the course of 11 years. The plan is similar to a bill introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) and former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), previously killed in Congress. For starters, Saturday delivery would be cut. This would be implemented when volumes drop to the predicted amount in late 2018. It would also replace door-to-door service with a centralized or curbside delivery service. This would perhaps ultimately be safer for mailmen and mailwomen. The plan offers the idea of “increasing revenue by providing postal management with more flexibility in creating new business opportunities, as well as boosting cooperation with state and local governments to offer services at post offices.”

The White House also addresses the mandated prefund healthcare benefits of retirees, deferring the 2015 and 2016 payments. The payments would ultimately be paid out under a 40-year amortization schedule beginning in 2017. This would bring in “$13 billion in relief to USPS through 2016.” The plan would reimburse USPS an estimated $1.5 billion in over-costs to the Office of Personal Management for federal retirement payments. It also calls for more future investments and faster technology.

Increased Rates

Lastly, the plan calls to make the emergency price increase of postage permanent. This, however, has been struck down multiple times. The price of mail increased by three cents in January 2014, the largest rate bump initiated in 11 years. The rate of inflation should have called for a 1.7 percent increase, but it set a 4.3 percent increase. The current stamp price is 49 cents. The price increase was granted to allow the USPS extra revenue and was set as a two-year term. When the USPS initially asked for the increase to be permanent, they were rejected by the Postal Regulatory Commission. They explained that the increase was meant to counteract losses from the recession, not to alleviate losses caused by the expanding electronic industry.

In a recent development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit ruled on June 6, 2015 that the priced increase could not be permanent. Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millet wrote the following:

The Commission sensibly concluded that the statutory exception allowing higher rates when needed to respond to extraordinary financial circumstances should only continue as long as those circumstances, in fact, remained extraordinary,” Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millet wrote on behalf of the appeals court. “The Commission permissibly reasoned that just because some of the effects of exigent circumstances may continue for the foreseeable future, that does not mean that those circumstances remain ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ for just as long.

This ruling does not favor this one aspect of the White House’s overall plan.

Other Possible Solutions

There are a plethora of ideas circulating for the USPS to generate extra money. One idea is the reincorporation of the Postal Savings System. It’s a basic savings account for those who don’t wish to use a private bank. Lower-income families that don’t currently use a bank and pay bloated prices for transactions like cashing checks could potentially benefit from this system. There are more than enough post offices around the country to make this convenient for customers. Another idea is for the USPS to catch up to its communication competitors and offer email/internet services. The USPS could offer an affordable rate compared to its potential competitors. Other ideas include “a notary service, selling fishing and hunting licenses, and ending restrictions on shipping wine and beer.”

The USPS could also remodel its system to more resemble postal services in Europe. Countries like Sweden, Germany, and Finland only allocate a certain percent of the market to their national postal services. For example, the Swedish service Posten only accounts for 12 percent of Sweden’s post offices. This allows it to streamline and focus on certain aspects of the market like digital mail products. Whether this is a viable option is up in the air, but could be an idea worth considering.

Conclusion

The financial issues of the U.S. Postal Service have massive effects on our country from the thousands of employed postal service workers to everyday citizens receiving and sending mail. An increase in stamp prices severely affects businesses that allocate a certain amount of their budgets to sending out materials. All in all, it is a national issue. With certain actions already in place, the USPS saw a $569 million revenue increase in the 2014 fiscal year. This by no means offsets the deficit, but it proves innovative ideas can make a difference. With any luck, revisions made to the 2016 fiscal budget will provide promising results.

Resources

CATO: Privatizing the U.S. Postal Service

Government Executive: As New Postal Leader Takes Charge, Obama Calls for Major USPS Reforms

Huffington Post: The Plight of the Postal Service

PBS: The Postal Service

Smithsonian: 197o Postal Strike

Time: How Healthcare Expenses Cost Us Saturday Postal Delivery

USPS: Despite Revenue Growth and Record Productivity, Postal Service Loses $5 Billion in 2013 Fiscal Year

USPS: U.S. Postal Service Reports Revenue Increase, $5.5 Billion Loss in Fiscal 2014

Washington Post: Postal Service Gets Approval for a Temporary Increase in Stamp Prices

Washington Post: USPS Cen’t Keep Rate Increase Forever, Court Rules

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article stated that the Post Office was created by the founding farmers in 1972; it was created in 1872.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The USPS Deficit Crisis: What’s the Plan? appeared first on Law Street.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback consistently promised change throughout his two campaigns for the gubernatorial office. Elected with major Tea Party support, he promised to downsize the Kansas government. Change he made, too–and as promised one of the big changes he made was to the school budget system in Kansas. However the major school budget overhaul bill he just signed may be coming back to haunt him, as some Kansas school districts will have to wrap up classes early this year due to a lack of sufficient funds.

Since taking office, Brownback has slashed taxes left and right. While that may ostensibly seem like a good thing, it’s essential to keep in mind that any time taxes are lessened, the loss in revenue results in a direct loss of services from the government. All said and done, Brownback has lightened the state’s coffers by about one billion dollars. Much of that comes from major changes to the state’s income tax rules, that allow many business to avoid income taxes mostly or completely. Specifically regarding education, from 2008 to 2014, the state of Kansas has spent about $950 less per student. While obviously not all of that came from Brownback’s tenure–after all, he didn’t take office until 2011–it’s clear that he did nothing to turn around that trend either.

Not everyone has agreed with Brownback’s approach. In fact in 2013, a state court declared the amount of funding that the schools were receiving “unconstitutionally low” as they fell below a benchmark established by the court in a 2005 decision. The judges in the 2013 ruling stated about Brownback’s policies that it:

Seems completely illogical that the state can argue that a reduction in education funding was necessitated by the downturn in the economy and the state’s diminishing resources and at the same time cut taxes further. It appears to us the only certain result from the tax cut will be a further reduction of existing resources available and from a cause, unlike the ‘Great Recession’ which had a cause external to Kansas, that is homespun, hence, self-inflicted.

As a result of lack of funds, some Kansas school districts now have to cut their school years short. For example, the Concordia School District is going to have to close about a week early. Another school district, the Twin Valley District, will be closing a whole 12 days early.

The fact that these schools will be paying the price for the financial decisions of Brownback is certainly concerning, if only because those students may be at a disadvantage going into the next school year, or whatever they choose to do after their studies. While a week or so doesn’t seem like a lot, students do often lose some of their learning during the summer months. It’s estimated that students lose about two months of “grade level equivalency in mathematical computation skills over the summer months.” Prolonging summer vacation even more could lead to a bigger loss in those skills. Hopefully Kansas gets its budget snafu sorted out, so it doesn’t have to take money from its youngest citizens.

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 Early Summer Vacation for Some Kansas Students appeared first on Law Street.

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was passed in 2012 in an attempt to save the failing National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that was deeply in debt and spiraling toward insolvency. As a result, homeowners in flood-prone areas, many of whom had never legally been in a flood zone prior to FEMA’s re-mapping efforts under the act, were required to buy flood insurance at outrageous premiums, with some homeowners seeing a 55 percent increase in their annual premiums. As a result, Congress has stepped in to delay Biggert-Waters’ implementation until these unforeseen side effects can be mitigated, though we have yet to see how this will be done. Read on to learn about the Biggert-Waters Act, flood insurance in the U.S., and what the next steps are.

How does flood insurance work?

While most of us know insurance is often sold by private companies consisting of comedic cavemen and geckos with accents, many types of insurance exist that are sold directly by or backed by the federal government, sometimes in conjunction with private companies. The National Flood Insurance program sells flood insurance, a highly risky type of insurance that most companies normally would not want to sell. It is sold through private insurers who perform the administrative work concerning policy issuance and premium collection, while the federal government collects the final premiums and pays all claims. Homeowners in designated flood zones are required to purchase this insurance, and since its creation in 1968 many policies are partially subsidized by the government to keep premiums reasonable. As of 2011, the program had 5.6 million policies in effect and $1.246 trillion in total insured value. Watch this adorable commercial created by the NFIP (who knew flood insurance could be cute?)

What is the Biggert-Waters Act?

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 was a piece of bipartisan legislation aiming to correct growing problems with the NFIP by bringing premiums in line with the actual risks they represented, and to establish flood zones that coped with the effects of climate change. As government subsidies of flood insurance premiums continued, the amount policyholders were paying into the program became gradually less commensurate with the actual risks being insured. Prior to the passage of Biggert-Waters, many flood insurance policies were subsidized. Despite this, the NFIP had remained stable until Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy struck the Gulf Coast and the Eastern Seaboard, requiring massive claims payments in addition to disaster relief, which severely depleted the resources keeping the NFIP afloat. After Hurricane Sandy, the NFIP needed $28 billion in bailouts, and currently the program is running $24 billion in the red.

Biggert-Waters sought to reform the National Flood Insurance Program in a number of ways. The bill aimed to increase the amount subsidized homeowners pay for their insurance, bringing the premiums paid in line with the actual risks and generating more revenue for the bankrupt NFIP. The NFIP would also no longer be able to provide a free pass for homes built before the NFIP came into effect, which had previously been grandfathered into the program. The program also commenced an extensive re-mapping project to make more homeowners aware of shifting and growing flood zones and to encourage them to purchase flood insurance, instead of remaining unaware until they require federal disaster aid. These mapped flood zones, as they had before Biggert-Waters, impose strict regulations on new home construction that require homes to be built at certain heights or with various loss-prevention methods. All of these reforms were meant to stabilize the NFIP financially and to accurately insure actual flood risks, reducing the strain on federal disaster relief funds.

 Why is there an effort to delay Biggert-Waters?

Some unforeseen side effects of the Biggert-Waters Act have caused many politicians, including Representative Maxine Waters (one of the bill’s authors), to seek a delay in implementation of the bill. She, and others, have done so through the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, which amends and delays the effects of Biggert-Waters. As a result of the re-mapping done by FEMA, many homeowners have found themselves in a higher-risk flood zone than they had been previously, which have stricter requirements governing the construction of homes, such as the height to which homes should be raised and the addition of flood vents or break-away walls. If these requirements are not met, a homeowner’s insurance premium can skyrocket.

Such was the case with Richard and Sandra Drake of Union Beach, New Jersey, who saw their annual flood insurance premium jump from $598 in 2013 to $33,000 in 2014 after they were re-mapped into a higher-risk zone. After Hurricane Sandy, the couple rebuilt their home and raised it three feet above the federal requirements for their flood zone. After re-mapping, however, their home was too low for the requirements of their new flood zone, and this was reflected in their annual premium. The new premium threatened to force them to sell and find a new home before Senator Robert Menendez stepped in and worked with FEMA to lower their premium back to pre-mapping rates. New York was forced to set up the Special Initiative for Rebuilding & Resiliency to combat the hikes in rates. Even residents whose homes are built to federal regulations may see premium increases. These rates simply are not feasible for many people who rely on federal flood insurance, which covers regions that range from secondary beach houses to low-income coastal communities.

How is Biggert-Waters being modified?

In 2014 Congress passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA), which repeals and modifies the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act. It limits rate increases to 18 percent annually to prevent steep jumps in premiums while mandating increases to subsidized policies, in order to create a more gradual and cushioned path toward the end results sought by Biggert-Waters. It also provides options for homeowners placed into higher-risk flood zones in the new FEMA maps to become eligible for Preferred Risk Policies (PRP), which help lower individual homeowners’ premiums. In addition, it reinstates “grandfathering” in order to help those homeowners who have been re-mapped into higher-risk flood zones.

In essence, the HFIAA is meant to move toward some of the goals of Biggert-Waters at a more gradual pace, allowing homeowners to grow accustomed to unsubsidized rates instead of being confronted with them all at once; however, many homeowners point out that, while gradually achieved, the future unsubsidized premiums will still be too much to pay in high-risk areas, especially in later years when many homeowners will be living on fixed incomes. While the HFIAA cushions the blow of Biggert-Waters, it does not altogether remedy the controversy.

Who opposes the HFIAA?

Critics of the HFIAA argue that the continued subsidies on homes in high-risk areas leave communities unprepared when the next disastrous flood strikes. By paying unrealistic premiums, critics believe homeowners will be less proactive in elevating their homes, constructing their homes with preventive measures, and working with insurance agents to find a workable financial solution to flood insurance. Many critics also oppose “grandfathering,” in which policies created before the NFIP was implemented in a given community receive lower rates, instead of being prompted to modify their home to be more prepared for potential floods. In response to homeowners who claim that modifying their older homes may not be financially or physically feasible, these critics argue that the effort and resources required to modify a home are negligible in comparison to the effort and resources required to rebuild after a devastating flood. In all, critics are disappointed with a Congress that triumphantly passed bi-partisan legislation aimed at balancing the federal budget, and when citizens began to complain, “bowed to short-term constituent demand.”

Why do we continue to build homes and live in flood-prone areas?

When digesting all of this information one might be prompted to wonder, “Why don’t people simply move away from flood zones? And why are people living there in the first place?” The answer, as is the case with most socio-political questions, is not so simple.

Many homeowners find themselves in flood zones because, historically, cities were often built along rivers or the coast for the accessibility of water transportation. The areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy are located near cities–New Orleans and New York, respectively–that rose to prominence due to their accessible harbors, and now these metropolitan areas, suburbs and all, are at the mercy of storm surges and fluctuating rivers and coastlines. In the modern era, prompting entire communities to pack up and move is simply not practical. Many of these communities date back decades and are multi-generational, making it difficult to abandon the area for higher ground. Many new development projects are also taking place in these areas because they are often profitable regions. A beach or a river valley can be an important tourist destination, and so construction in these areas continue despite the risk and the rising cost of flood insurance.

Opponents to flood-zone development are becoming more vocal, however, and are questioning why these areas remain filled with homes. At a certain point, opponents argue, the cost of living in flood zones will become too great and populations will be forced to evacuate. The United States is not the only country struggling with the question over the habitation of flood zones. Severe flooding that affected various parts of the British Isles in February 2014 caused a storm of political bickering and thorough media coverage. Many sources condemned coastal townships and politicians alike for lack of preparedness and for the approval of new development projects in flood zones. Thirteen percent of all new development projects in the United Kingdom in February 2014 were on flood plains, despite well known flooding in those areas. Similar to the U.S., the British government partnered with the Association of British Insurers to create a not-for-profit company to keep flood insurance available and affordable for the U.K.’s citizens. While the dispute over flood-plain communities has existed and will exist for some time, the impending insolvency of the National Flood Insurance Program demands immediate action.

Resources

Primary

House of Representatives: Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012

House of Representatives: Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014

Additional

USA Today: Flood Insurance Bill Clears Congress

Think Progress: How the New Flood Insurance Reforms Make Costly Future Climate Disasters More Likely

Times Picayune: How Controversial Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Bill Became Law

NJ.com: Union Beach Couple Gets $33K Flood Insurance Bill After Raising Their Home Above New Federal Standards

Insurance Journal: Rep. Waters, Author of Flood Reform Act, Calls for Delay in Implementation

PropertyCasualty360: House, Senate Reject Efforts to Delay NFIP Rate Increases

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Biggert-Waters Act: Fix it, Don’t Abandon it

The New York Times: Outrage as Homeowners Prepare for Substantially Higher Flood Insurance Rates

The New York Times: Homes in Flood Zone Double in New FEMA Map

Independent: Why Do We Insist on Building on Floodplains?

Architects Journal: Flood Debate: Should We Build on Floodplains?

BBC: Why Do People Buy Houses in Places Prone to Flooding?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Flood Insurance: The Biggert-Waters Act and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Is the federal government ‘too big’ or ‘too small’? Americans have been debating the best size of the federal government since the birth of the Republic. From the Federalist Papers all the way to current court cases seeking to establish the superiority of states rights, the federal vs. state government fight is not a new one. To this day, intellectuals on both sides of the issue fight to prove the merits of their own views, as well as show which government philosophy would be better for taxpayers. Looking at the numbers might surprise you, though. The federal government probably doesn’t spend as much as you think.

The federal government’s budget is one of the most politically sensitive topics there is — entire movements were born from a perceived sense of increased governing spending (hello, Tea Party). While it may be the job of Congress and the President to compromise and agree on a budget, mudslinging and partisanship make its passage very difficult. The most recent budget proposal, presented by the President on April 10, requests nearly $3.8 trillion in expenditures and $3.03 trillion in revenue, putting the deficit at $744 billion, or 4.4 percent of gross domestic product. That’s a decrease in the deficit of nearly $229 billion.

Right now, federal legislative, judicial, and executive branch departments are under what is called ‘the sequester.’ As a result of the failure of Congress and the President to pass a federal budget by January 1, 2013, the Budget Control Act was set to automatically reduce spending in various departments throughout the federal system. Some have applauded the sequester’s sharp curtailing of government spending, while others point to the devastating economic ripple effects the law has had. According to the Government Accountability Office, “19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and seven reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from one to seven days.” The Congressional Budget Office has pointed to a possible 0.6 percent contraction of the nation’s economy due to the austerity-minded law.

After the government shutdown in October 2013 due to partisan disagreement over the budget bill, Congressional approval ratings plummeted to 10 percent. Three months later, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which sought to increase spending caps enacted by the sequester in exchange for extending the duration of the cuts to 2023 -– lowering the national deficit by $23 billion. Advocates calling for lower government spending should be applauding.

As the nation continues to debate whether the sequester cuts have been beneficial or harmful to the nation, the next date to look forward to is in September when the government runs out of authority to spend taxpayer money. With the national debt at $17.5 trillion and counting, and the midterm elections coming this November, we’ll have to wait and see is Congress will work together to pass a compromise appropriations bill.

As time goes by, the federal budget inevitably increases in order to meet the country’s demands. As our infrastructure continues to crumble, more Americans retire, and workers demand a living wage, increased spending cannot be stopped in general, no matter the amount. It is up to our elected officials to take action and simplify the tax code, increase revenue, and close corporate loopholes and subsidies.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan McFarland via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does the Government Really Spend Too Much? appeared first on Law Street.